USA 2012 elections

[Legendary Apophis]

I should have been more precise, my criticism towards homeschooling gets sharper as the child grows in age. I am much less skeptical towards homeschooling within elementary school early years and what's before, than the next steps.
However, I still consider that it should require particular parameters for homeschooling to happen, regardless of "school level".

[™THE_LEGEND™]

I should have been more precise, my criticism towards homeschooling gets sharper as the child grows in age. I am much less skeptical towards homeschooling within elementary school early years and what's before, than the next steps.
However, I still consider that it should require particular parameters for homeschooling to happen, regardless of "school level".

Agreed, I believe elementary age children should spend more time with their parents, homeschooling is the best way for that to happen. When they get towards the junior high, middle school/high school age then they need more education. For me, in high school is when I learnt many things, you learn from your mistakes and what not. High school tests your character and makes you a better person. I was homeschooled from 1st-4th grades and went to a private school after that till I graduated from there. I think there are some adults who dont have the means to teach their children on that high of an education level. But yet there are many who are fully capable of teaching their child just as much as a professor or teacher with 20+ years of experience and P.H.D and masters in whatever they teach. Experience and Wisdom is the best teacher, knowledge really means nothing.... Its nice to have someone teach you that has the book smarts but I want someone who had the experience and hands on smarts like my parents did

[Psyko]

When I try out the following site about USA 2012 elections, I am in front of several problems regarding the questions provided
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/
Meant to tell which candidate you would be closest, but problem is that some of answers I only partly agree with, and some I am in favor of compromise/balance rather than favoring one or another. Which makes the result inaccurate.
Question 5 for example, about security vs freedom: I am neither in favor of too harsh security/paranoid stances nor in favor of light-to-none security measures, I am in the middle, looking for a good balance. Means I shall pick "neither"? (one example of a question I would neither be for the first nor the second)
Same with minimum wage question, I would say it depends, considering US states have each a minimum wage, it's rather hard to limit it to "increase no vs increase yes". I mean if minimum wage was to be of $250/month, of course I would be in favor of an increase, but it depends where it is, and how the buying power goes in said state, etc... Shortly, not increase for the sake of increasing, but considering the local state requirements to see whether it should be increased or remain as it is. But considering differences are between states and president usually isn't there to do nation wide policy and it's up to governors to work on such things, I think it's rather misleading to pick an candidate considering that, but I suppose it's about whether they were in favor of it or not, back when they used to be senator/governor of their state?

That question regarding abortion...I am not pro-life (in the sense abortion shouldn't be done whatever the parameters are), but, I am in favor of rather limited abortion, meaning when it is needed (rape, health issues, etc..), I don't know what's pro-choice associations stance. Are they in favor of extended abortion, or limited abortion (which I agree with), taking into account that isn't a contraceptive method but something used when child in question has big health issues, can cause health issues to mother, or is the result of a sexual attack. Concerning teens' children, I must admit I am rather unsure what stance to take, case by case maybe, I don't know to be honest. My stance would be to give proper information to teens to avoid them having babies in the closet, due to lack on information about contraception methods, how to use them etc... Because abortion is not contraception. Information is really important, but such information should be policed, to avoid "twisted" information (one or the other extreme regarding abortion and sexuality) to be provided. As a consequence, I could be considered as a pro-but-limited-choice, but that would be sort of in between two options.

The problem with websites like that is that your choices are far too limited. I could go through and tell you pretty much who you would end up with if you went one way or the other for each question. There are several issues that are primary concerns for each party.

Abortion:
Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich see abortion as something that should never happen and they will attempt to influence Congress to get their Pro-Life Agenda passed. Ron Paul sees the issue as a State decision, which allows more freedom to the people, because we would then be able to vote for ourselves(and it allows for multiple choices such as limited abortion, unlimited abortion, and no abortion); something we are unable to do if it were just The President and Congress pushing their agenda. Obama is Pro-Choice and will not sign any bill which limits abortions.

Minimum Wage:
The federal minimum wage is $7.25. This was put in place because the government needed a way to pay all federal employees the same in different states and there were some states which never raised the minimum wage to meet the rising cost of living. This would be an issue if the cost of living was getting much higher each year and we needed a larger increase. However, most states increase the minimum wage by a few cents each year to try to help with inflation and rising cost of living. This shows what actually happens in the US: http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm

When it comes to choosing a candidate, I take into account his/her stance on the big issues of the election, but I also consider their personality and their personal values. This is because many of their promises, platforms, etc. are never going to get through Congress (look at ObamaCare), so you have to look to the person you believe can lead the country and has enough will and integrity to be the better President than the other candidates. I liked Obama more than Clinton, and I was afraid Palin would shoot McCain and take over...as well as not liking their values, personalities, and platforms. Depending on the Republican candidate, I may vote Obama once more.

There are rumors that another candidate will reveal themselves at the Republican National Convention.

[[KMA]Avenger]

This is the kind of utter crap that RP has to deal with:

"Ron Paul takes the Tennessee Republican Assembly Convention Straw Poll as the corporate media continues to ignore the Texas representative's bid for the GOP nomination. Keeping in step with the effort to minimize the Paul ground swell, the TRA cut off voting two hours early and endorsed the poll loser, Rick Santorum."

You people nee to ask 1 question, why does the establishment and the media continue to pull **Filtered** like this?

IMHO and my personal view is, because RP would put them all out of a job, and have them up on charges of treason against the US constitution and the US people.

.as well as not liking their values, personalities, and platforms. Depending on the Republican candidate, I may vote Obama once more.

Let me be clear... OBAMA, GINGHRICH, ROMNEY SANTORUM, CLINTON, MCLAME, ALL OF THEM,THEY ARE ALL THE SAME CRAP CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH SPEWING THE SAME RHETORIC BUT IN DIFFERENT WORDS.

They are all the same, only the face and the voice are different.

Either vote for RP or don't vote at all, if Obamaaaaah or any other establishment endorsee gets in you will wish Booosh was still in the White House....mark my words!

[Psyko]

They are all the same, only the face and the voice are different.

Exactly. But if Santorum wins the Republican Nomination, I'll likely pick the one with the black face and deep voice.

As I am an Independent, I cannot vote in a primary in my state, so I have no say over who becomes the Republican Nominee.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Erm...that includes Obhaaaama.


On a different note, have you heard about the John Warner Authorisation Act and NDAA (National Defence Authorisation Act, for the less aware)??

Again as a side note and something that just occurred to me, ALL of the above with the exception of RP have voted for JWAA and NDAA

[™THE_LEGEND™]

On a different note, have you heard about the John Warner Authorisation Act and NDAA (National Defence Authorisation Act, for the less aware)??

Yep.... Rather interesting man

[[KMA]Avenger]

That's a bit of an understatement. both of those acts are blatantly illegal since they more or less strip you of any remaining rights you have from God (or nature, whichever you prefer) guaranteed to you in the constitution.
The President is more or less making the entire world (including US home soil) a battle field and has granted himself dictatorial powers to kill or detain any citizen he so chooses without the right to a trail by your peers. even if it is an accusation and no proof exists.


Still interesting?


Edit:

With all the Voter fraud going on, and with Jabba...sorry...Newt Gingrich also facing over 1100 cases of voting fraud being brought against him, this has now come out as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RftFyPfYQxA

[Legendary Apophis]

I think Mitt Romney is going to be Republicans' candidate.
Why?
Rick Santorum is a catholic radical, and I think religious conservative voters who happen to be from other branches of Christianity might vote for another republican for theology disagreements with catholic. Newt Gingrich is in trouble with his ex wife (not really popular in Republicans world when you don't have a united couple, see previous republican candidates for elections) and Ron Paul is just too unique for establishment to support him and those who prefer a mainstream candidate -should I say less radical- wouldn't go for him. I think however Ron Paul might be the last competitor to Mitt Romney, due to rather large support among voters.
Sure Mitt Romney is a former democrat (some might say he's opportunist) and is the establishment's favorite, some voters might consider it as a reason not to pick him, but I think that the fact he has a rather good record in his state Massachusetts (according to what I read at least) might be in his favor.

So far it seems I am right. Sure it's not over yet, but for now I was right. Except fact I didn't expect Santorum would receive such an important support.

[Juliette]

Catholic, Protestant or Mormon, none of them are that much loved by the other. In general. Of course, on individual levels denominations are meaningless.

[Psyko]

Catholic, Protestant or Mormon, none of them are that much loved by the other. In general. Of course, on individual levels denominations are meaningless.

JFK is still the only Catholic to have lead our country. For some reason that is supposed to be important, despite all the other things Kennedy did as President.

I've just found out I may get a chance to vote in the Republican primary this year!! Woot! My state does not typically allow Independents the right to vote in a primary.

[[KMA]Avenger]

All i know for sure is that Ron Paul is being screwed big time.



Edit, forward to 1 min and 40 seconds and listen to what this so called "reporter" says: "See This Room Two Thirds Of Us Laid Off When Ron Paul Is President" Press Caught On Hot Mic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxeH3Cad1MQ

[Juliette]

Ron Paul would be ideal. Finally no more USA messing up the rest of the world.
You will see how little actual terrorism there is.

[Legendary Apophis]

Ron Paul would be ideal. Finally no more USA messing up the rest of the world.
You will see how little actual terrorism there is.

Still confuse me why on the one hand you would support the only "anti NWO" candidate (Ron Paul) and on the other hand say that the "NWO agenda" isn't a bad thing after all.

[Juliette]

Because, dear Jimmy, no one in their right mind would fight the changes in progress.
So NWO-conspiracy yappers have adopted Paul as "their candidate".

Did Ron Paul ever speak out against the NWO? Does Ron Paul say "OMG THAT NWO IS TEH BAD BURN IT!"? You know the answer.
Am I to discard a perfectly good candidate because some morons with the shortsightedness of a one-day fly claim Ron Paul is 'theirs and theirs alone'?
Hell no. No one decides who I support and when.

Contrary to the tin-foil-hatters, I will not swing from a tree like some kind of chimpanzee. If Ron Paul meets more of my points than any of the other trash in that race, he is a good candidate.