And you aren't dependent?  EVERYONE in a modern society is IMMENSELY dependent.  This happens when people end up specializing in things, and decide to not do a lot of things for themselves.  The issue is not dependency, but what people can do to contribute.  The teamwork mentioned is needed and people need to contribute so there is enough to go around.  Without an ability to contribute, it does become unsustainable.  

If you don't think you are dependent, then get off the Internet now, and go mine all the resources that the market produced so you can get on here, create your own language, and everything else civilization provides, and fend for yourself.

Civiliztion does not eaual government. There is no need to be dependant on the government. It seems that is always the argument used by those who are for governemnt. they act as though nothing can be done with out the government and that society only exists with government backing. that is not the case.

It can not be teamwork when people are forced to help. Forcing peoiple to do things that they should be doing out of the goodness of their heart will only lead to resentment of the leechers, and than an excuse to not help others as it "the governments job" both of which we see now.

Show me an example of a functioning civilization that doesn't have government as part of it?  Unless you are anarchist, you believe that government is needed in some form.  The debate is over how much government is needed and its role.  Again, as I have wrote prior, government works, and that is the problem.

The issues with anarchy is that people haven't found a way to make a "out of the goodness of their heart" argument work, in order to get what is believe is needed is done.  What eventually creeps in is coersion to some degree.  This has been shown scientifically via research, in what is called "the public goods game":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods_game

You can do more research on it, but it was found that having players punish other players for not contributing (aka, engaging in coersion) resulted in more contributions, and more public goods available (call this the common framework and glue of society).

If you also want to try a game, where the goal is to score the most points, and optimal play on an individual level and group level produce the best results, but where players usually won't (aka, no governance in the game), feel free to try The Quitting Game, with -1 point penalty for each round you stay in the game:

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/128512/the-quitting-game

That is a game I created out of observing what I saw happen around Occupy, which had absolutely no form of governance and leadership on top, which lost to the coersive power of government, with law enforcement kicking them out of a park where I was.

In the end, people will normally agree with the following, regarding government and taxes to pay for it:

http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/6696

Can we just get on with the debates???

For Christs sakes !!!!

I don't give a rats ass about what this media outlet says or that media outlet says...

Make up your own goddamn mind !!!!!

Don't let someone else tell you what to think or what matters.

Why can't we just wait until the candidates meet in a debate and decide for ourselves. Until then, the polls are nothing but jack shit.

Hey look, China has decided to put the 47% in cages!

http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/20/13993684-chinas-netizens-outraged-over-caged-beggars-at-taoist-temple-fair?lite

I never we didn't government. We dont need to rely on government for everyday things.

I was merely responding to that. Any of those items were, and can be done with out the government.

No need to go on an anarchist rant. Just because I dont think the government is the end all be all of everything does not mean i do not think it should exist.

Not saying much because I am tired of reading Badgenome's constant annoying opinions and would rather just analyze the recent polls.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/election_2012

http://electoral-vote.com/

A third of Voters Less Likely to Support Romney Due to Video
A new Gallup poll shows that 36% of voters are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney as a result of the video in which he said that 47% of of Americans are dependent on government and consider themselves victims. In contrast, 20% said they were more likely to vote for him. The rest weren't swayed one way or the other. Among independents, 29% said they were now less likely to vote for him while only 15% were more likely.

An Ipsos poll also just released has similar results: 43% of the registered voters view Romney less favorably as a result of the video. Only 26% felt better about Romney. While the details of the video will be forgotten in a few weeks, the lingering image of Romney as someone who does not care about half the country could remain and hurt him.

Romney Tries to Change the Subject
After a devastating week of criticism over his all-too-hasty remarks about the events in Egypt and Libya, and two devastating days of attacks over the "47% video" what does Romney do to right his ship? He brings up a 1998 audio clip of Barack Obama saying "I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody's got a shot." It is hard to believe. There was no apology from Romney for anything he said, no major speech like Richard Nixon's 1952 "Checkers speech," no indication of any kind that he might have done something wrong or ill advised. Just more attacks, and then with a 14-year-old audio clip.

Republicans Afraid that Romney Could Cost Them the Senate
Presidents often have coattails and Republicans are now worried that Obama's coattails in states like Ohio and Virginia could cost them control of the Senate. John Weaver, a senior advisor to John McCain in 2008, said: "If your guy wins the White House, he's going to sweep in one or two or three Senate races that might not happen otherwise." Other states where a big Obama win could bring in a Senate seat are Nevada, Wisconsin, and Connecticut, all of which have very tight Senate races.

This is big news as it has appeared to have a pretty large affect in close states.
States like Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, Wisconsin and Florida have all swung a little to the left it appears and I hope so.

MSNBC of all people actually had a better source of it.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/49108014/

Essentially what it found was it made pretty much zero difference among TRUE undecideds.

The "More likely" and "Less likely" numbers just due to boring ass partisian sources that were or werent' going to vote for him anyway.

I do not see any reason that that source is more reliable than the others, still I will admit polls vary and that is why I put up multiple sources. It cannot be denied that I the most recent polls do show an increase for Obama in several key states. Both maps show an increase for Obama in the states I mentioned at the bottomn of the post. It is easy to overlook.

Edit: and I added another one for you.

http://www.polltrack.com/presidential

If you listened to the video.  You would of heard why it was more reliable.

So it makes me question whether you watched the video or not.

This is MSNBC here, they aren't trying to hoodwink you... as noted by the entire conversation aftewords trying to spin the details.