I also hope it won't happen, but of course it's inevitable. We're a species that in it's entire existence has always waged war. And with most small countries being bond in treaties (NATO), and other countries taking up half a continent(USA, China), this would mean that if war would occur between for instance China and any Western country, you would speak of a World War.

The funny thing is that when you compare the changing of presidents or that of the majority party in congress and compare this with the change in the economic climate you can see that these are completely separate from each other. So you can conclude that a president has little to no influence over the economic climate.

Now to answer the question, I don't believe the Republican party actually let Obama win. Certainly if you look at the history which says that most recessions are over within 3 years, which would be in time for the next presidential election.

It wouldn't matter as almost every woman uses birth control.

Because almost every woman uses birth control, if birth control would be added to insurance, the cost of the insurance for women would go op equivalently with which you would normally buy your birth control pills.

It completely depends on what your definition of capitalism is, but i do believe that when executed properly capitalism is the best kind of society.

Let me first state that a system which is perfect is an utopia, so there will always be flaws. But if capitalism would be executed properly it would be a society in which everyone has equal rights which inevitably leads to equal opportunities. I believe these are the basic principles upon which society should function.

So, no there is nothing better than capitalism.

In a world where you can go to any place and be there within 24 hours isolationism doesn't work. The entire idea becomes obsolete. Also, when you live in a world where the economy already is completely globalized, it's inevitable to also think global politically as you have interests all across the globe.

The way to look at it, in my opinion, holds that you should ask yourself the question "In what way would allowing gay marriages make me think different about the value of my own, straight, marriage". When you ask yourself this the answer is obvious, of course it wouldn't, as it's completely separate from your own. If, for instance, two convicted criminals would marry, you probably wouldn't attach this marriage to your own. The same counts for gay marriage, you may not agree with it but the marriage is completely separate from your own and wouldn't affect it in any way. The only argument people opposed to gay marriage could make is the religious one. But as the constitution specifically states a division between religion and state this argument is moot.