Topic: Who do you support for president? - page 2. (Read 5160 times)

This issue was settled over a hundred years ago. There are constitutional amendments strictly forbidding slavery and discrimination. Besides, this is 2012. Nobody thinks like that anymore.

Because a constitutional amendment forbids that.  The constitution trumps all.

This is probably where I'm confused, so bear with me. If states should be allowed to define personhood like you say, then wouldn't some states just define group Y as not people? This group would be treated like property.

It's primary function is market manipulation for the advantage of the powerful and debasing the savings of those struggling to save in the first place.

I agree.  Actually, one of my friends supported R.P. until I pointed out the faith stuff.  For me, it was that he supported don't ask don't tell.  Even when I did support R.P., his followers were unnerving.  And I meant the Moses thing because he is treated like he will lead us into the promised land (Promised Land = no Fed) and has some sort of connection to the laws from God (ark = the constitution). 

Obama was sort of a Jesus.  Doesn't' really follow the old laws (constitution) but performs miracles by feeding the 5000 ("Give me my Obama Check") and the poor love him.

Most seriously, does anyone worry what will happen if the FED is gone?  It sounds radical, but I don't know the implications.  Does it serve any important functions?

Should states be allowed to legalize slavery: Obviously not. That kind of hypothetical application of policy is simply stupid. Especially since slavery is forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Should states be allowed to abolish corporate personhood: Yes, absolutely. If a state chooses not to recognize a corporation as a person, they have every right (10th Amendment) to do that. Of course, that state would have no say on whether or not the corporation is recognized as a person in other states or at the federal level.

Should states be allowed to extend personhood to apes: Again, absolutely. If a situation occurred where that would be an issue, it would be the state's decision.


Here's why I'm on the side of our founding fathers when it comes to state's rights: America is a huge nation. The individual needs of say, Nevada, will never be the same as say, New York. Therefore, internal state affairs should be run by the state. Interstate trade should also be regulated by the states, NOT the federal government. I'll give you just one quick example of how the federal government has overstepped its constitutional limits when it comes to state's rights: In 2002, the federal government decided that it would deposit tons of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The proposal was hugely unpopular in Nevada, but the civilians had no choice in the matter. When the bill was sent through the Senate, there were only three votes opposing the bill, because no congressman wanted the waste in their state. But who were the three that voted against it? Two senators from Nevada, and Ron Paul.

Now to address abortion briefly: I support abortion. However, since it is such a controversial issue, there are going to be differing opinions. If certain states outlaw abortion, that is entirely their decision to make; especially since it's a healthcare issue! The 10th Amendment explicitly says that any powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution should be left up to the states. Federal run healthcare is an absolute mess.

Also, this is almost a tautology.

Of course fanatics worship him, and they are the loudest.  But he has plenty of fans and even just supporters who aren't nutjobs.

I trust any other option would do evil even if the constitution should prevent it.

RP stands for the constitution as strongly as he stands for his faith.  He's the only presidential candidate that isn't willing to bend it to their will.


I think Obama has good intentions, but fails miserably at execution.  He knows the legal system, but understand little about how the world works.

My vote is going to Obama or RP, but Obama has done some things that really upset me.  For example, shooting over 100 cruise missiles at Libya at $1 million a pop, without congressional approval.

Hawker, over the last few months you've shown a pattern of behavior that boils down to arguing semantics and is=ought. Yes, I know that judges rule on personhood... Based on laws passed by the other two branches of government. As I explained above, a lack of direct control over the constitution does not prevent the president from exerting tremendous influence by playing politics.

Rather than assigning lengthy reading material to display your own superior knowledge and passive-aggressively insult me, you could actually try for a moment to honestly express your own views (if you have them).

I didn't see where you explained that there are no abortion rights.  I don't think you did.  You just asserted that.

"It's because he doesn't truly believe in freedom. " is also an assertion.  Don't make them if you don't want me to make them.

Dude, taxes are not our problem.  It is the corporations buying our government that is the problem.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in freedom.  You argue for him because he is limited in what he can do Federally and is the least of that small list of evils.  Would you want him as your governor?   I sure wouldn't. 

If it has nothing to do with his odds on winning, why did you bring it up?  You simply lied when you said that he is the only one we can trust to do what he says. I trust Ron Paul would do evil if the constitution wouldn't prevent him from doing so.

Boy, talk bad about some one's God and they get really pissy.  Well, ignore me if you want, but I still think you are a fool if you think repealing RvW won't change anything.


Actually, I am voting for Obama.  I only said that I trust Dennis to do what he says, when he said Paul was the ONLY one we can trust.  I think Obama has better morals than R.P.

Also, I believe you can write in anyone you wish.  And I don't buy into someone else narrowing down my options.  Nor do I follow R.P. because he is the most popular lesser evil.  He is treated as a Moses by his fanatics.  I don't get it.

Thank you for answering my question. Follow-up question: If states are deciding personhood, then shouldn't they be allowed to legalize slavery, or abolish corporate personhood, or extend personhood to apes?

I agree with you about which issues are biggest, and they'll probably influence my vote more than abortion as well. I just doubt that many of us here actually disagree about the wars.

---

I'm also strongly against a biological definition of personhood; I believe in defining personhood by mental ability. This precedent will have significant consequences for future generations and I won't ignore it just because, like always, there are pressing immediate issues.

I too don't want to quote the flame war above, but I will make this assertion:
1. All people own themselves.
2. Women are people.
3. First trimester fetuses are not people because they lack any mental ability.
4. People have a right to do as they wish with their property IFF it does not interfere with the rights of others.
Therefore,
5. Women have a right to abort.

If fetuses ARE people, the whole thing falls apart and the fetus has a right to live. Either way, it's a matter of rights and personhood, just like slavery and corporations.

I used visit this forum to have my core beliefs challenged by free thinkers.  Now its people debating the next US election with (a) the wrong candidate and (b) no idea how the US constitution works.

I miss Atlas.

Nope, but dayfall doesn't care.  He's voting for him anyway.  It's the logical choice .

Dayfall, I'm not going to quote your trolling horseshit. I had a feeling from your tone that your would prove me correct.

If you make an assertion, you need to provide evidence. I explained my position already, which you didn't really want to discuss. But regardless, it's impossible to prove a negative. Take a logic class sometime.

I absolutely do not support Kucinich and it has nothing to do with his odds on winning, which are 0. It's because he doesn't truly believe in freedom. All you have to do is listen to him talk about taxes for about 3 seconds to know he'd put us in a worse situation than we're already in.

And no, you didn't fix shit....not that you were trying to. You were just trying to be a snarky asshole - mission accomplished. Too bad you had nothing meaningful to contribute.

PS - welcome to my ignore list. If that saves you some typing, you're welcome...I'm guessing you'll show your ass again anyway. Have fun.

Kuchinek is not a candidate is he?

"there aren't really any "abortion rights", by the way." is an assertion. Which is why I rebutted with an assertion.   Awww, are you upset that I made an assertion?  Is that reserved just for you?


Damn I sure did.  I don't trust the pandering faithist.  Now unless you say we can't trust Kucinich to actually do what he says in the running... ok actually you are saying that.  Well, we will just have to disagree on that point.


Oh YES, he will protect the "children's" rights. Let me quote him "We must stand for life – not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval."  Certainly, this is an odd use of the word "children" that I haven't been told of.  Is he seriously using children to mean fertilized eggs?

(BTW, I am selling children in small glass vials.  3 BTC for a boy. 2 BTC if it is a girl.  Now you can have your own family.  Please specify if you want a Christian child, they cost extra)


It is obviously quite a serious point if it is his SECOND "issue" on his campaign site.  ANd mentioned several times in his faith.


Actually he didnt' make it clear either.  He just says "life" begins at conception.  "Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception". What science is this?  I really want to know.  He obviously can't say a person is created at conception because identical twins would conflict with that.  He must resort to weasel words.  "Life" instead of a person.


He will "Define life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”"
Yeah, you are a FOOL if you think repealing RvW won't change anything.  Hey, way pass an act that wont' change anything?

And the goverment like Kucinich supports is one that you hope doens't happen?  If you have reasons then you ought to state them, not your "wasted vote" approach.  If my vote is wasted because I chose the person I thought was the best suited to be president then I dare say something more serious is wrong than you have complained about. 

Who do you support for president?
Dennis Kucinich .  And if you and your son of God, Ron Paul have a problem with that, then you  can bend over for him.

Ideally, no level of gov't should be interfering in the personal actions of individuals, as long as they're not harming others. Since that's unfortunately not possible, it should absolutely be left up to the states. That's at least the fairest possible way.

What's more though, is that the gov't should not really be involved in this at all! Healthcare has survived independent of the gov't for millennia. Since the gov't takeover, things have only gotten worse. Ron Paul will fix this by privatizing the healthcare industry once again, which will be good because we'll all actually be able to take care of ourselves once our dollar is stronger (or if everyone starts using bitcoins ).

Seriously though, I cannot even fathom how you think that abortion is a big issue right now. We're fighting multiple wars, on the verge of a couple more, and the U.S. and world economies are crashing. And you want to talk about.... abortion. Come on.

Yes, read the quote. And saying "it is a right" is a bare assertion, not an argument.

By all means, vote for Kucinich. That's your right. You didn't "fix" a damn thing, though.

But unlike Kucinich, Ron Paul has enough support to win (on a relatively fair playing field, at least.)  His main concerns are protecting everyone's rights (not just yours), limiting the federal government's power appropriately, and returning to sound money. If you would throw that away because he disagrees with your definition of when a person becomes a person (which you still haven't clarified) - even though this disagreement is unlikely to change anything in reality - well then sir, you will get the government that you deserve. I hope that doesn't happen.

you keep saying that.  Is someone saying that he will?


By the way, it is a right.


The Fed. Govt. should do only one thing.  Protect our rights.  In my view it would fail in this duty if RvW were removed.


Fixed it for you.


I agree.  But he doesn't go far enough.


Fixed it again for you.

They should be required to take the same test given for citizenship.