Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Consent of the governed


  • Please log in to reply
278 replies to this topic

#1 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,809 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 02:58 PM

Nuther thread has me thinkin', as I do from time to time, about the notion that voting is an act of consenting to be governed by the results of the election.

I'll very likely be sitting the 2012 election out. I used to think of voting as a duty. For a while, bought into the, "if you don't vote, you have no right to complain" argument.

Have voted 3rd party sometimes in the past, but am feeling like participating in the process at this point would be giving my blessing to/condoning* a system which is thoroughly broken in my estimation.

Curious what other folks think about this concept.




*this sounds arrogant as hell, but I think y'all know what I mean.

#2 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,270 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:00 PM

Thirsty?


Posted Image

#3 In A Silent Way

In A Silent Way
  • VibeTribe
  • 26,713 posts
  • LocationShoreline, CT

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:01 PM

I hold my nose and vote in every election. If there are third party candidates that seem appealing, I vote for them.

#4 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,457 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:06 PM

If there is a candidate I find vote worthy I vote, otherwise I do not vote.

Question: If everyone who did not consent to be governed did not vote, how would things look after the elections?
What statement would be made, what would be gained?

#5 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,378 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:07 PM

I understand where you're coming from but it could be said that non-participation in government by the citizens is a leading cause of what got us where we are. Conundrum of sorts I guess. I would say that a 3rd party vote, however meaningless it may be in the end, is still a vote and is participation. Getting back all that we've lost under this systems will be a lot harder than it was to lose it, but not impossible.

#6 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:09 PM

I'm inclined to believe that voting on the presidency is vital to establishment continuity. that is, if no one voted, or the numbers of primary voters dipped so low that no clear winner could be announced, the establishment would choose to put someone in that held the best interest of corporate washington.

On the other hand, if you vote for whom they put in front of you, then you're doing exactly as they wish. Just look at all of the Obama supporters who will again, with blinders on, support a man that ran on a campaign for peace, hope and change. He delivered none of that, of course.

I'll be voting this one last time. After which, i will sink deeply out of the political arena and abstain from this new American culture that has sprung to life over the last 100 years. I'm more inclined to begin the process now of taking "my business elsewhere", so to speak.

I think the old "if you didnt vote, you can't complain" argument has long since exhausted itself. The realities of the current two party paradigm make it a moot point. As there is absolutely no difference from (NY-D) to (R-AL) in the most crucial areas of our well being as citizens. Namely, the foreign policy of Empire building and constant, never ending wars.

#7 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,809 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:18 PM

Question: If everyone who did not consent to be governed did not vote, how would things look after the elections?
What statement would be made, what would be gained?


Probably the media would bemoan the apathy of the electorate. Probably things wouldn't really change...we'd still end up with a corporate-approved dingleberry "running" the show. Probably business as usual.

But some of us could look at ourselves our various mirrors the next morning and be ok with who we saw looking back.

#8 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:20 PM

I vote third party just to let them know that I don't approve of the 2 running the show :joker:

#9 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,809 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:21 PM

Conundrum of sorts I guess.


It is that.

Getting back all that we've lost under this systems will be a lot harder than it was to lose it, but not impossible.


I tend to think that it is impossible, without some significant event - likely economic hardship which dwarfs what we've seen so far - really waking people up.

#10 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:25 PM

Let me ask - Just where you all see the country heading on its current course?

#11 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,809 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:27 PM

Let me ask - Just where you all see the country heading on its current course?


Magical Fairyland.

#12 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,457 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:28 PM

Russia before the revolution.

#13 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:34 PM

Posted Image

#14 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:35 PM

i think they should stop beating around the bush and declare henry paulson dictator alreay.

#15 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,457 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:33 PM

"...He told me 25 years ago that he would feel real trapped if he didn't know that he could commit suicide at any moment."

#16 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:37 PM

"...He told me 25 years ago that he would feel real trapped if he didn't know that he could commit suicide at any moment."

Posted Image

#17 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,297 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 29 December 2011 - 05:07 PM

"If you don't vote you have no right to complain" is redonkulous. Act
in your democracy how you want to act. If I don't vote in my town but
then they come along and do something crazy, I can't complain? I don't
have the right to choose how I wish to help affect change? Not.

If you think the voting is rigged
-- don't vote, cause you're just propping up a false system.

If you think the nominees are selected by the Illuminati
-- don't vote, cause you're just propping up a false system.

If you think the system is such that whoever gets in can
effect almost zero change, that all the candidates are
99% the same
-- don't vote, cause you're just propping up a false system.

If you simply think that money is too much of an influence,
but that people's votes really ARE counted and that individual
presidents and senators DO have some differences between
them
-- VOTE
It might not make as much difference as you like, but it is a difference.



Interesting thing: I was listening to a Pod-Cast by Cecile Richards,
President of Planned Parenthood. She mentions a meeting that
Obama had regarding some specific bill that contained some specific
measure that would not have been good for Planned Parenthood
and for women's rights. (According to her views.) She says that
Obama flatly and directly said NO to it and would veto the bill. She
makes the point that McCain almost certainly would not have taken
that stance or stood up for that.

Point being: Yes, maybe the choices between any two candidates
seems like a null choice because on the HUGE issues there isn't much
difference or because whoever is President really has their hands tied.
BUT...in numerous ways that happen every day and that
affect real people in real ways...it does matter who is president.



Cecile Richards- President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (6-14-11)
http://www.commonwea...n-america-61411

#18 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 29 December 2011 - 05:42 PM

ANARCHY!
:panic:

#19 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,378 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 05:43 PM

Oh shit, PF woke up....

#20 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 29 December 2011 - 05:44 PM

glad to see the central planners are keeping track of my sleep schedule :thup:

#21 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,378 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 05:46 PM

not really sleep, mostly the decline of civil conversation during the day. oh, and the lulz

#22 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,270 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 05:48 PM

:clapping: YAY LULZY TIME! :clapping:

#23 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,457 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:08 PM

What of the allegations that Planned Parenthood is a eugenics organization?
Does PP really have women's rights at heart or is it some other agenda?

#24 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,297 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:14 PM

What of the allegations that Planned Parenthood is a eugenics organization?
Does PP really have women's rights at heart or is it some other agenda?


My only point was that who is president (or senator or governor or mayor) does matter -- even if someone thinks that on the largest issues they all act the same.

Maybe one feels Obama was wrong in supporting PP on that occasion. So maybe that person would rather have McCain there.

As for me: In general I suspect that PP is more in line with my values than than not. But truthfully, I don't know enough about the organization to know. And it's too bad, but I don't remember the detail about the issue I'm referencing -- so even on that I don't know.

Still, I believe that who is president does matter. So I usually vote.

#25 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:20 PM

What of the allegations that Planned Parenthood is a eugenics organization?
Does PP really have women's rights at heart or is it some other agenda?


I don't really think it matters for what jabadoodle was after in context. His point, although a fatally flawed strawman*, is that there are differences between politicians within the paradigm. Of course, he is correct about that. My point, is that those differences are superficial and minimal to the overwhelming problems the country is facing.

From my point of view, having "equal rights" or a "fair share" or any other arbitrarily determined talk point is rather moot when the law allows the government to round you up and hold you indefinitely for fitting 'their' description of needing to do so.

It does no good to offer "free" healthcare or education to everyone within a nation if the government can take away your most basic human rights for perceived violations of vaguely written laws.

I could go on endlessly, but to me it is quite clear that some of us see things in a much broader view, some of us will settle for extremely small victories in ideology, etc..etc..

Vote or don't vote. Base your vote on whatever you feel is the most important item out there. Or don't do to moral obligations. It's a choice we still have in the end. Whether or not some question if it really counts.

*I insert this because predicting what one might do in a given situation that could never arise in the first place, is weak in the area of argument. That is to say, saying Obama would do X, while McCain would "almost certainly" do Y....you get it...

#26 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,457 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:20 PM

Ah, yes I agree that there are stances on a multitude of issues that do make it make a difference who is president.

#27 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,809 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:30 PM

I see your point Jabadoodle, and I see some validity in it.

'Ceptin' I don't trust that anyone that's put forward for office any longer will do even the "little" right things anymore. And the wrong things they all do are very, very big.

While I disagreed with him on a lot of issues, I voted for Obama last time around, because I thought McCain sorely lacking in judgement, and, honestly, questioned his sanity. I was proud that this country had gotten to the point that we'd come far enough on "race" that he could get elected. Watched the inauguration and shed a tear of happiness at what I was seeing. For a while, would say to people, "hey, it would have been worse with McCain in the White House." Now I'm not so sure of that.

#28 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,270 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:32 PM

[quote name='Tim The Beek']I see your point Jabadoodle, and I see some validity in it.

'Ceptin' I don't trust that anyone that's put forward for office any longer will do even the "little" right things anymore. And the wrong things they all do are very, very big.

While I disagreed with him on a lot of issues, I voted for Obama last time around, because I thought McCain sorely lacking in judgement, and, honestly, questioned his sanity. I was proud that this country had gotten to the point that we'd come far enough on "race" that he could get elected. Watched the inauguration and shed a tear of happiness at what I was seeing. For a while, would say to people, "hey, it would have been worse with McCain in the White House." Now I'm not so sure of that.[/quote]



I'm sure.
Think Palin. :wink:

#29 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,809 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:37 PM

Think Palin. :wink:


Even factoring that in... :dunno:

#30 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,270 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:46 PM

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwww

#31 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:48 PM

It's hard to determine what would have been different under circumstances that will never arise. The bottom line I think, is that we have been lied to, and we have been lied to big. People are tired of these lies (at least those of us that pay attention and care), whether you like democrats or republicans. G. Bush ran on a "no police the world" ticket in 2000. And he lied and lied big. Eight years later, Obama promised us an end tot he Iraq war as teh first thing he would do, along with closing gitmo, etc....and he lied and he lied big.

I'm only willing to vote for someone to hold the presidential seat that can clearly demonstrate consistency among my views. I am deeply passionate about ending all these wars within our nation. That is my biggest concern for our country, as it touches on so many other vital ones that need to be addressed. that's all i have on it, and i am not left with many choices when it comes to who is offering these two things.

Consistency
Anti-war

#32 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 07:04 PM

I'd bet if a Republican had won there would be a lot more outrage over things like the way we bombed Libya, the NDAA, SOPA, etc... hell, there probably would have even been more violence at OWS protests but because it's a Democrat in office a lot of people are willing to bend over and meekly accept what's being done to us.

#33 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,270 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 07:12 PM

I'd bet if a Republican had won there would be a lot more outrage over things like the way we bombed Libya, the NDAA, SOPA, etc... hell, there probably would have even been more violence at OWS protests but because it's a Democrat in office a lot of people are willing to bend over and meekly accept what's being done to us.




Or perhaps the lesser amount of outrage is due to the fact those who oppose Dem rule are more likely to support the bombing of Libya, the NDAA, SOPA etc.

#34 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 07:16 PM

There is probably a lot of truth to that, joker.

It goes back to what types of things people place within the realms of value. I think many, many people in this country are only partially paying attention to the whole picture. Many latch onto those smaller victories, and are willing to omit certain things to see those achievements.

But those who still defend Bush look at the Obama administration as "destroying the country".

I never liked Bush. That dislike turned to raging hate for the man by the time he left office. I literally could not watch him make a speech on the tube. I would get extremely enraged watching him talk out of both sides of his mouth, not to mention his ass.

I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt in 2008 and was hopeful he would counteract some of the things I considered grave danger to our nation that Bush put in place. But, he too, has only expanded those things exponentially. i can still bare to listen to a speech by the current president, but put no stock in what he says vs. what he does.

#35 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 07:38 PM

Or perhaps the lesser amount of outrage is due to the fact those who oppose Dem rule are more likely to support the bombing of Libya, the NDAA, SOPA etc.

I'd guess most Reps are against most of anything Obama does. It's those that supported Obama that need to speak up soon if there's going to be any chance to stop this type of shit. As long as he still has the tacit approval of those who voted him in then there's no reason for him to change what he's doing.

#36 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,270 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 07:43 PM

I'd guess most Reps are against most of anything Obama does. It's those that supported Obama that need to speak up soon if there's going to be any chance to stop this type of shit. As long as he still has the tacit approval of those who voted him in then there's no reason for him to change what he's doing.




Absolutely!

#37 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:04 PM

I'd guess most Reps are against most of anything Obama does. It's those that supported Obama that need to speak up soon if there's going to be any chance to stop this type of shit. As long as he still has the tacit approval of those who voted him in then there's no reason for him to change what he's doing.


I think a lot of those who voted for him and plan to vote for him again, blame the republicans for all that is wrong still. Even his own administration has come out on numerous occasions and blamed the republican congress for all the failings in washingon.

yet, Obama never vetoes things and never takes the fight to their door. All while pumping out more of the same neoconservative doctrine that so many that voted for him were in complete panic over during the Bush years.

#38 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,457 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:09 PM

How did his shrinking of lobbyists go?

#39 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:17 PM

It didn't go. It was just another empty promise while he lined his pockets with big corp. money. His voter support should really take the time out to see just where this man sits and whos side he is really on.

Joker said it already. It's high time those who voted for him start taking a stand instead of treating things like it's just a game they can't afford their team to lose.

#40 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,378 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:26 PM

It didn't go. It was just another empty promise while he lined his pockets with big corp. money. His voter support should really take the time out to see just where this man sits and whos side he is really on.

Joker said it already. It's high time those who voted for him start taking a stand instead of treating things like it's just a game they can't afford their team to lose.


I can only speak for some of the people around this ultra-conservative area that voted for him. I have not spoken to 1 that plans to vote for him again. So, what I'm saying is that it appears the "Obama jig is up" around these here parts. :lol:

#41 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:37 PM

Well, if they flopped on the conservatives to get Obama. it would seem not surprising he wont get their vote a second round.

I'm more looking in the direction of staunch blue team members who will quietly cast a vote for him and say "well, it would be so much worse if......" and then walk away. And they will is the sad part.

Obama and Hilary Clinton were Americas "most admired" according to a gallop poll. To me, that speaks volumes about how much attention the public is paying to world events.

Two murderers, who flaunt their murders as wins, are the most admired? That's pretty dangerous thinking as far as im concerned.

#42 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,378 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:41 PM

beleive me, if you are a liberal in this area, you are staunch. People are denied jobs because of their political affiliations.

His term is flopping them, at least for this election.

#43 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:44 PM

I see. The Blues in the town of Reds are defecting. That's a start. :lol:

#44 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 29 December 2011 - 11:23 PM

What of the allegations that Planned Parenthood is a eugenics organization?
Does PP really have women's rights at heart or is it some other agenda?


Have you read the book or seen the movie Freakonomics? It's interesting. One of the things brought up is that the crime rate has gone down as a result of legalized abortion 20 years ago.

legalized abortion = less unwanted pregnancies = less unwanted children = less criminals = less crime

Or perhaps the lesser amount of outrage is due to the fact those who oppose Dem rule are more likely to support the bombing of Libya, the NDAA, SOPA etc.


this.

#45 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,766 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:10 AM

good thread, tim.

i was chastised for chiming in on a political thread after making it clear i hadn't voted.

i consistently hear people speak about their dislike of both candidates within the two party system yet they say that they will be voting for one of them anyway. this mentality seems to only perpetuate the system we hate and continues to disempower the american voter (son, would you prefer to be beaten with the the belt or the wrench?). i, personally, think we do more damage by voting for the "lesser of two evils" (the candidate who promises you the belt) than by opting out of the two-party system all together.

but i certainly understand why people feel the lesser of the two evils is better than (what has been assigned) a wasted vote. it's tragic that we've allowed ourselves to be so disempowered that these have become our only options though. it's tragic that we have a media and corporate system that has furthered this disempowerment

until 3rd party candidate viability surfaces, well... I'm not going to vote for goldman sachs, monsanto, more debt, continued deaths of those in the middle east, and having my civil rights eroded.

won't get fooled again.

#46 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,766 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:35 AM

"If you don't vote you have no right to complain" is redonkulous. Act
in your democracy how you want to act. If I don't vote in my town but
then they come along and do something crazy, I can't complain? I don't
have the right to choose how I wish to help affect change? Not.

If you think the voting is rigged
-- don't vote, cause you're just propping up a false system.

If you think the nominees are selected by the Illuminati
-- don't vote, cause you're just propping up a false system.

If you think the system is such that whoever gets in can
effect almost zero change, that all the candidates are
99% the same
-- don't vote, cause you're just propping up a false system.

If you simply think that money is too much of an influence,
but that people's votes really ARE counted and that individual
presidents and senators DO have some differences between
them
-- VOTE
It might not make as much difference as you like, but it is a difference.


well said

#47 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,766 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:45 AM

What of the allegations that Planned Parenthood is a eugenics organization?
Does PP really have women's rights at heart or is it some other agenda?


it certainly started as one.

i think most working in the offices today, have women's rights (and, well, a paycheck) as their mission.

the higher ups? not so sure

Faye Wattleton (ironically, a black woman) who served as president of PP back in the 80s, praised the work of Sanger

"As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our courageous leader, we should be very proud of what we are and what our mission is. It is a very grand mission; abortion is only the tip of the iceberg."

and in 1992 Wattleton was awarded the Margaret Sanger Award:

The following is quoted from Planned Parenthood Federation of America's 1992 Annual Report, page 13: "THE PPFA MARGARET SANGER AWARD, *<Planned Parenthood's highest honor*>,* was presented in 1992 to former PPFA President Faye Wattleton. Planned Parenthood's national leader from 1978 until March 1992, Ms. Wattleton exemplified the courage *<and ideals>* of Margaret Sanger,*PPFA's founder."

#48 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,766 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:53 AM

found this interesting. i guess the way PP helps the poor is by eliminating them?

I concede alternative arguments can be made about the conclusions below, but these facts are worth considering

The Racism of Planned Parenthood today: "A racial analysis of abortion statistics is quite revealing. According to a Health and Human Services Administration report, as many as forty-three percent of all abortions are performed on Blacks and another ten percent on Hispanics.[13] This, despite the fact that Blacks only make up eleven percent of the total U.S. population and Hispanics only about eight percent.[14] A National Academy of Sciences investigation released more conservative--but no less telling-figures: thirty-two percent of all abortions are performed on minority mothers."[15] "During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods.[16] Of the more than one hundred school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade, <none> have been at substantially all-White schools.[17] <None> have been at suburban middle-class schools. <*All have been at Black, minority, or ethnic schools.>*"[17]* Planned Parenthood itself reports[18] that of the 132,314 abortions it did in 1991, 23.2% were on African Americans, 12.5% were on Hispanics, and 7% were on other minorities. Thus, the total abortions on minorities is 42.7%. But minorities comprise only 19.7% of the U.S. population.[19] Therefore, relative to population *Planned Parenthood preferred to abort minorities three times[20] as much as whites.* "'There is no way you can escape the implications,' argues Black financial analyst William L. Davis. 'When an organization has a history of racism, when its literature is openly racist, when its goals are self-consciously racial, and when its programs invariably revolve around race, it doesn't take an expert to realize that the organization is indeed <racist>. *<Really now, how can anyone believe anything about Planned Parenthood except that it is a hive of elitist bigotry, prejudice, and bias?*>* Just because the organization has a smattering of minority staffers in key positions does nothing to dispel the plain facts.'"[21]

http://www.ewtn.com/...fe/ppracism.txt

#49 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,766 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:17 AM

Last one

More irony

Sanger was opposed to abortions. she believed that life should not be terminated after conception. In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote, "while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."

#50 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,767 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:44 AM

Let's not hijack this thread w/ anti-PP stuff, CC. I'm not sure that I'd consider ETWN - Global Catholic Television out of Alabama (of all places) the most unbiased source on this :funny1:

But this reinforces jabadoodle's point, that some smaller social issues are important enough to some to sway their vote, even if the candidate isn't "ideal" in other ways.