In response to:

Paul Ryan: Women “Hit Hardest” Under Barack Obama

nodeamass Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 11:41 AM
If all of us hunted and fished and farmed and we were on the frontier, I would agree. Living in a city has a very different dynamic. I presume you are 100% independent, so I pose this hypotheitcal to you. If a catastrophe hit your region, how long could you survive on your own?? Water? food? energy?? protection?? transportation??? You might last a couple of days or even a week longer than others, but ultimately, you would perish!!
Whit Chambers Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 12:55 PM
SMyles Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 12:39 PM
I hope we get to see how far superior. Not being a fascists like the O is a good start.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 12:30 PM
"The powerful and connected (i.e. politicians and their cronies) laugh at our legal system as a minor inconvenience. The break the law and then let the other law breakers judge them. "

That is true in any legal/governmental system. Ours is the best one out there currently but corruption, abuse of power, cronyism, political kickbacks, buying of politicians and other evils have always been with us.

But you cant throw the baby out with the bath water so we have to choose the best we can. In this case it is a no brainier since Romney is far superior in all categories to Obama
SMyles Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 12:15 PM
Yes, I agree there should be "rule of law". Not anarchy, although Rothbard makes a case for it. I grew up believing we had rule of law here in the US. Now I believe I was overly naive. The powerful and connected (i.e. politicians and their cronies) laugh at our legal system as a minor inconvenience. The break the law and then let the other law breakers judge them. Rule of law is for the little people.
SMyles Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 12:06 PM
That's a silly scenario. But you'd be very surprised how long many rural folks would last. It also sounds like you're assuming there would be no private efforts/charities to assist those that needed it or that people would not help each other. Do you not understand the difference between voluntary actions of kindness and virtue vs. the use of force.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 12:02 PM
If a catastrophe hit my area I would not starve and would be armed to protect myself and my neighborhood. Fresh Veggies would be my only problem outside growing season. .

When I lived in Philly it might be different. But I live in the south now and the rivers and ocean are bountiful not to mention hunting.

But while nobody except a loon is for anarchy, it is different then being for huge Gov control Of our lives. It is not an all or nothing proposition
SMyles Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 12:00 PM
Maybe I should add, in case it's not obvious....The moment a right or privilege that goes beyond individual rights is granted to some certain segment of the population it always results in others losing their individual rights.
SMyles Wrote: Oct 20, 2012 11:55 AM
Being self reliant doesn't mean literally living off the land. Although that's the way my parents were brought up. Even they had to to buy things, It's more a matter of a combination of resources that one secures. If you make really good money it's obviously easier to be self reliant. But the main point is that our god given individual rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness apply equally to all. When those individual rights are violated no matter how noble the cause it's wrong and immoral.

After watching this clip (which is a few days old, as it happens) I am absolutely convinced that no one can better articulate the shortcomings -- and failures -- of this administration’s economic policies than Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan:

The poverty rate among women is at a seventeen year high. Over five million women have just left the workforce. Fewer women are working today than when he took office. And so, of the people who have gotten hit the hardest…it’s women.

This is an excellent...