The vaccines were compulsory because it was demonstrated that the threat of smallpox was an imminent danger to the lives of all humans on the planet, and our republic. Diptheria, Tetanus, etc. are not demonstrable as such, and there is no public health imperative for any vaccine on the market. The WHO frequently tries to make us believe otherwise, through media hype like the swine flu and bird flu scares, SARS, anthrax after 911, etc. But the public health threat simply doesn't exist. So, I believe the example is a good one. Until there IS an existential threat, the fact is that compulsory vaccinations are merely a vehicle for the expansion of executive authority.



I don't live in Europe. Here in America, it's legal to be both an idiot and a total asshole. Here, we believe these restrictions are a violation of the 1st Amendment. As long as no one is hurt there isn't a reason to deprive someone of their 1st Amendment right.

K

Well, "as long as no one is hurt", while a noble concept, doesn't cut it no more, does it? Who is protecting JFK, Gabrielle Giffords, Martin Luther King, while these primates are enabled by your constitutional Amendments?

I am just observing, as I care little, I do worry to see the legality of this madness extending way beyond the limits of your country and the epic consequences this "enabled by whatever law" is having on everything. I do appreciate your previous comment though

Wouldn't this be because, perhaps, most of us are not American?

Peace,

Deleted. I should have learned my lesson by now - stay out of politics!!!

Yes, it does. I should be free to say whatever I damned well please as long as no one is slandered, trampled, or otherwise harmed in the process. I should be free to enjoy my privacy as long as I'm not torturing endangered monkeys or kidnapped children. And yes, I should be free to own and carry a gun as long as I'm not shooting people, or causing a public disturbance.



No amount of protection would have saved JFK from his assassin. We've been debating that one for 50 years now, but the dude would have gotten a gun regardless of any gun law on the books. Same with MLK and Giffords. And, well, I never really considered that the law of our land, the very fabric of our way of life is actually responsible for ENABLING CRIMINALS to go on a bloodthirsty rampage. I always thought if someone wanted to kill other people, they would just do it... like that guy did to the Archduke Ferdinand. Or that blond dude living in Norway, who got a gun and mowed down a bunch of tourists, or the Scottish guy who shot up a bunch of schoolkid years back. Or, or, or... you can find gun killings anywhere you go. Some folks like to believe the phenomenon is America-specific, but it simply isn't true. I grew up thinking the Bill of Rights was for protecting US citizens from the despotism of government, not for giving psychopaths a license to kill and steal. I confess that sometimes I'm frightened by other people's misunderstanding of our Constitution and what it does.

In any case, I was speaking of the 1st Amendment when you clearly brought the 2nd into question. That's fine. I also wish weapons would vanish from the earth all at once. That would be a neat trick.



I didn't know that! I just took it for granted that it didn't matter, since America is the most diverse society of immigrants on the planet. However, I'm frequently reminded that the only truly free-thinking, culturally significant people live just outside our borders, and I thank you for trying to help me out.

Best,

Kev

Okay. So, in a 2009 interview with George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Obama insists Obamacare is NOT A TAX. Repeatedly, he emphatically denies it. Fast forward to this morning, June 28th, 2012. Justice Roberts, a Bush appointee, says that the constitutionality of the entire bill rests on the fact that it is a tax. No opposition, of course, from the Obama Administration. Amazing stuff. We made history today, folks.

If you believe today's narrative, the bill which was legitimized by one Republican man in a black robe represents a $500,000,000,000 tax on the American people. Look at all those zeros. You could play marbles with all those spheres.

It's official: the government can now require (force) you to enter into a contract with a private corporation or face a fine, enforced by the IRS, for not doing so. That's a neat trick. I have to hand it to Obama's men; they must be really... PERSUASIVE to convince an otherwise conservative man to cough up such bullshit to save a bill his colleagues know is blatantly unconstitutional.

Such a palsied understanding of what a tax actually is. Such an underhanded way of instituting a historic law, particularly for the most transparent administration ever. Ironic that the bill is upheld after his Attorney General is held in contempt of Congress. Truly astounding. The President claims executive privilege over documents he says he knew nothing about.

Transparency. Honesty. This is the guy who was going to change it all around, make this country more free, make us proud to be Americans. Instead he took his supporters as pawns, played them against their own country. Even the ones who are sickened by the undeniable horror of what he has done will be there for him in November... What they perceive is the polar opposite is just too frightening for them. What a crock of shit.

We are witnessing the final manifestations of a global fascist system.

Enjoy.

k

I've decided to completely abstain from the voting process this November if I am given only two choices on the ballot.

I swear, if I ever hear the phrase "if you don't vote, you can't complain" again I will go berserk. I see it quite the opposite... Knowing what we all know right now about lying, stealing, vicious, duplicitous, traitorous politicians, I would say "If you vote for this load of crap YET AGAIN, then don't complain about what you get."

So, if you vote, folks, DON'T COMPLAIN. You asked for it with your vote.

I will never ask for it again. I'm out.

Unless, of course, I have an interesting 3rd party candidate to back. The mere mention of it recalls visions of Ross Perot and accusations of spoilers, etc. Fine.

My question is this: Why should I not support a candidate who will never win over a candidate who might win but will never represent me?

Kev

Another thought is that even if you do vote and you live in a State that votes the other way consistently, it hardly feels like your vote even counts.

In recent years, my wife and I have begun to support local "Women's Resourse Centers" and adoption centers that offer alternative solutions to abortion. So we often look at the candidates stance on the abortion issue. But seriously, you can't make a good choice of who can best represent you on whether you agree with them on one particular issue.

So I find myself with a desire to ignore the presidential races altogether, since it doesn't seem to make a difference. Would the USA be any different today if we would have had a different President for the last four years? Probably not that anyone would notice. (With the exception maybe of those who are ,or who have family, in the military) Will our Country be on a much different path with a new President over the next 4 years? Probably not.

Sorry to sound pesimistic. In the past I have been more excited about the process and will likely be again someday. But I will add that we almost never watch the news or the speeches anymore due to being busy with other stuff, and it does seem that in this case "ignorance is indeed bliss"

Mike

yes. considering the absurdity of the electoral college in the modern world, you're vote rarely will count if you do not live in a swing state. Awarding electors on a "winner takes all" approach basically guaranties that my vote, in a vastly republican state (2-1 typically), means nothing since I don't vote Republican.

Why and how anyone can argue that we should not have true direct elections is beyond me.

In addition, the way electoral votes are apportioned (by # of Congressman & Senators each state has) means that a person's vote in a low population state means more than a person's vote in a densely populated state.

This is one messed up place when it comes to voting & electing presidents.

The Founders gave us a Republic instead of a Democracy for very specific reasons. Do some research. But for now, consider this:

One-fifth of the nation's population lives between Boston and Washington D.C. Most of that corridor votes Democratic. If you add the population of the West Coast (which also, I might add, votes heavily Democratic), you could conceivably win an election without having to pay the slightest bit of attention to the entire rest of the country. Win the two coasts and you have the popular vote count pretty much locked up.

The Electoral college prevents this from happening. It forces Presidential candidates (and national parties) to appeal to more than just the big population centers on the 2 coasts.

One: I know exactly what I am talking about and don't need to do any more research - but thanks for thinking I do.

Notice something about the constitution? It has these things called "Amendments" so that when people later decide that the original constitution needs to be changed, you can change it.

The founding fathers also said that only white male landowners could vote, and black people were property. So you're cool with that? I mean, it's what the founding fathers wrote into the constitution...

Two: regarding representation - I'm sorry, I just don't see how in this modern world, with the various means of travel and communication, one can say that a President will ignore the votes of states that don't have big population centers. Guess what "big population centers" are full of? People. And they should decide who gets elected - not how many acres and rocks and trees exist in a state.

Direct election - one person/one vote, or electors awarded on a proportional basis, means that the vote of someone in Wyoming means no more in an election than the vote of someone in New York. No need for a candidate to focus all their time in major population centers if all votes count equally.

I do find it amusing that you think some votes should count more than others. Guess you live in a low population state?