Chris S

If you could be the one person to decide if Mitt Romney or Barack Obama were to become president and no one but you would know that all of the other voting didn't really matter, would you? No one would know it was you, but your vote would be the only one that mattered. If no, wouldn't your candidate do a better job than the other guy? If yes, why shouldn't everyone else get a say, too?

Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, believes certain things. His beliefs will certainly shape his handling of the job of President, correct? So why is it off-limits to wonder about belief in celestial undergarments having protective powers or of getting a planet after death? I don't know if I want my president to have magic underwear on.

I understand that it's a little rude to question someone's beliefs, but if they're going to be guiding the direction of the country, shouldn't we all know as much as we can about them?

Today's google doodle features Keith Haring style art, and is endorsed by the Keith Haring Foundation. That foundation is also not shy about sending cease and desist letters to people using a similar style. I was wondering how they have the right to style aspects of Keith Haring's art if it isn't traced or copied. Would their demands to stop hold up in court?

There seem to be a lot of people who are very concerned with the one guy defecating at Occupy Wall Street. Is it discussed frequently on conservative talk radio? Why are people continuing to be obsessed about it?

I need some help from the 53%, 47% experts here. If I have no 'income' but a large amount of capital gains that get taxed at 15%, I'm in the 47% that pay no federal income tax, right?

Incidentally, Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan that reduces capital gains tax to 0% would be AMAZING for someone in this situation.

I'm still trying to understand the whole 53% thing... most of them are in with the 99%, group-wise, so why are the beliefs so separate?

(The initial question was hypothetical... I am actually a member of the 99% who are not super-wealthy and the 53% who pay federal income taxes.)

from the Occupy Wall Street facebook page:

We just want to remind everyone that Occupy Wall St. is for the 99%! Each and every one of you is included! Many people are concerned that this is becoming a strictly left-wing movement. That just is not true. Remember, this is not about pushing a specific political standpoint, it is about discussion between all of us. This is not an "us" vs. "them," this is everyone working together to make life better.

--

So why are people on here arguing and calling supporters and protesters liberals and commies and such? As a HUGE bonus, if you do think they're all liberals and commies and such, what can they do to reach out to you and make you feel included in their message and goals?

I saw a quickly-deleted question here and thought my response was thought provoking, while being pretty free of bias. The original asker wanted to know if they repeated that Obama was a skid-mark enough if it would become "settled science".

You need a hypothesis, with well-defined terms.

Hypothesis: Obama is a skid-mark. Obama is clearly Barack Obama, the president. You'll have to define better what you mean by skid-mark, though.

Then you devise a series of tests that check your theory, checking to see if it works and if it is predictive.

Example: If Obama is a skid-mark, he will play tennis on Tuesday.

If Obama does not play tennis on Tuesday, then he is not a skid-mark.

The tricky bit is that if he DOES play tennis on Tuesday, he might be a fan of tennis, rather than a skid-mark.

It's possible to disprove, but not actually possible to prove the positive case, which ends in the idea that it can't be a proven fact, but if your theory is completely predictive (and even one failure to predict disproves your theory), and other people can repeat your results, then yes, your theory could be an accepted theory.

I'm genuinely confused about this, so maybe some of the more wordy people against raising the debt ceiling can explain it.

In just about a week, the US will start owing more money than it takes in, which has been happening for a very long time. All of the money that needs to go out has already been budgeted for and is pretty legitimately owed to the people who receive it, if it is the Justice Dept, veteran benefits, social security, interest payments, whatever... we have agreed to spend as much as we have.

While I can absolutely understand the need for a balanced budget, why is anyone actually against raising the debt ceiling to take care of current obligations?

Once that is done a more balanced budget can be considered during the budgeting process, can't it?

I can totally understand not wanting the government to interfere in your life, but these existing programs seem pretty well-liked. Am I wrong?

Also, how about the highway system or national parks? I'm pretty much trying to figure out where the ok line is for government taking your money and doing something for you with it.

For people who are against Socialist Programs or upset by the Health Care Bill but that do not have a problem with Medicare or Medicaid, why is that?

I'm trying to understand the Tea Party a bit better and I hope my line of questioning isn't offensive to any of you for whatever reason. I've got a bunch of questions, so the more of them answered the better. I'm willing to read long answers, but please don't just copy and paste from somewhere. Thanks, Yahoo answers people!

I'm still a little unclear on the beliefs of the Tea Party are and they often seem to be in conflict or just based on what an uninformed person wants them to stand for at the time. Are they against government healthcare? Does this include Medicare and Medicaid? Are they for personal liberty? Does this include keeping abortion legal, not telling gay people that they are not allowed to marry, and ending drug prohibition? What do they see in Sarah Palin? Are they anti-intellectual? It's all a bit unclear to me, and I consider myself generally well informed.

Oh, and probably the most important question is about your answers: Why do they believe this?

Hyperbole-filled hate answers from either side don't really help things.

Apparently it is not legal to serve horsemeat for human consumption in the US. Besides objections to meat-in-general, is there any good reason to ban the sale of potentially-delicious horse?

I am not even that hungry and were I legally allowed, I could eat a horse. But I can't.

Some people in the US call Japanese animation anime, is there a term used in Japan for North American animation?