Bitcoin Forum

Vote! (Just like in Washington County!)

Vermin Supreme!

+1

I want my mandatory identification pony.

I think all presidential candidates should be required to take 3 normed IQ tests and have their average score publicly released.

While I don't think IQ truly reflects 'intelligence,' it's still a good indicator of how many variables --  and interrelationships among these variables -- a person can hold in their mind.

We need people who can truly parch a situation in office.  Implementing nice sounding policies and laws does no good if you aren't sure how those policies and laws will affect everything else.  It's like a gigantic rubix cube on steroids.

parse?

Lol, yes.  My skin is very dry :(

None of the above.

What's your beef with Ron Paul?

Of the above terrible choices I picked Ron Paul. But I can certainly understand why libertarians wouldn't support a man who would would threaten women's self-ownership.

Barack Obama, so he can kick the jewish/zionist lobby in the balls. not that i have anything against jews or anything, but they deserve it, just like the copyright lobby.

At what level do you think legal personhood and human rights protection SHOULD be decided? Shall we leave slavery up to the states too?

Nice red herring, but regardless of your views on slavery, your original statement was not correct. Ron Paul is not a threat to women's "self-ownership." He is against any kind of federal abortion police.

Slavery is not a fair comparison because slaves couldn't move to a different state (without getting the dogs sent after them).  Free women can.

Barack Obama.  Not because I think he is any good (I don't) but you poor guys seem only have bad options and the joy of watching the wnd/breibart people erupt in collective outrage is something to look forward too in the cold Winter evenings.

It's not only a completely different issue, the entire "I don't support Ron Paul because of my views on abortion" is a very dishonest (or ignorant) argument. Ron Paul is not going to pass laws that hurt anyone concerned with abortion rights. So that should be the least of your concerns, even if you're a one-issue voter.

I personally am very pro-abortion (haha). But I agree with Ron Paul in principle - as an OBGYN he just believes that a person is a person earlier in the process than I do. I don't think we should legalize killing infants because their mother's lives might be inconvenienced, and many abortions are done for this reason. If you think that the fetus has rights at some point, abortion past that point is indeed murder.

Again - luckily - this shouldn't be an issue in deciding whether or not to vote for Ron Paul. Just like the fact that he's a Christian shouldn't be. Because he's a strict constitutionalist, we can disagree about these philosophical issues and not have to worry about him passing laws that violate our rights. Instead, he will focus on fixing things that have sent us hurtling down the path to destruction, like trying to police the world.

Forget policing the world, the most violent country in the world is just south of Texas, and that's completely our fault.

Excellent point. Besides being the commander-in-chief and having the power to give us a stronger military presence at home at a much lower cost (do we need 70,000 troops in Germany??) the war on drugs is another place where the president can have an immediate and extremely positive impact on how our country behaves without over-reaching the power given by the constitution.

Those are quite different things.  One is his beliefs, and the other is his actions.  He is going to remove laws that protect the rights of the citizens.  

Just like when he said (video was taken down) that don't ask don't tell has nothing to do with homosexuality, his views on a fertilized egg being a human (that can be murdered) has not been rationally justified.  And if it isn't the choice of the mother then who should decide?  Current laws protect this religious choice.

Anyone who is against day after pills or contraceptives for anything other than social reasons is not rational.  Hence, not suitable for president in my opinion. Until, RP ensures these rights won't be taken away he will not be supported by me.

My vote- none of the above.

Your vote will always be none of the above if you have to stretch this far to find a fault with a candidate. Ron Paul will not remove any laws that "protect citizen's rights."  If you're talking about overturning Roe-vs-Wade you are misrepresenting the issue to bias opinion.

Have fun worrying about how abortion laws might have changed when the dollar collapses and you can't buy food or gas.

First of all, I'm in agreement that he's the least bad of the above choices. I might even vote for him anyways, because yeah there are other issues. Personal accusations of dishonesty hurt my feelings, so I would rather discuss Paul and his positions... Maybe I'm just ignorant about something, please give me the benefit of the doubt. This is one of those few internet arguments you could actually "win". :)

Paul certainly COULD sign laws that would harm abortion rights, he does have influence over the issue. Even in the case of constitutional amendments, the president can and will trade favors to influence the outcome. We're talking about making someone one of the most powerful men on Earth.

Slavery (and corporate personhood) are valid comparisons with regards to legal personhood being determined at the federal level. It's easy for us rich folks to just waltz across state borders, but for pregnant women facing social stigma and possible poverty, even local prohibition is a huge disincentive to abort. Slaves could run away too, but I'd rather we focus on this topic rather than play the analogy game all week.

So my question to you guys, if I may repeat - what level of government should be responsible for
A. deciding legal personhood, and
B. protecting human rights?

Correct me if I am wrong. It doesn't matter who you guys vote for - the decision about legal personhood is taken by the 9 voters in the Supreme Court.

Oh what EVER. Jeez. Electoral college, plurality vote, supreme court... It's not perfect, but your vote DOES count!

Not in Maine, apparently, if you're voting for Ron Paul. Oh wait, they do count it...for Mitt Romney. :|
http://www.fox19.com/story/16937227/reality-check-was-there-voter-fraud-in-maine

Sorry it doesn't.

Really - the decision is taken by the Supreme Court on those questions.  It does not matter who you vote for - legal personhood is decided by judges.  Read Roe vs. Wade.

Great! And my comment was just me being honest - not a personal attack at all. I do believe anyone who says that they aren't voting for Paul just because of his views on abortion are either not well informed about Ron Paul and the state of the world, or they're being dishonest and trying to smear him with an appeal to emotions.

Ron Paul will not pass any federal laws that "hurt abortion rights" - there aren't really any "abortion rights", by the way. He would at most work to overturn Roe-vs-Wade, but only in the constitutionally allowed way that the president can. That's only to remove the federal governments interference with state court rulings. The federal government doesn't interfere with differing state laws on murder and manslaughter, so I don't know why anyone would object to this if they believe in limiting federal power to its constitutionally defined boundaries. The abortion issue is definitely one with grey areas for everyone except those who believe the right to life starts at the instant of conception, which I don't. One thing we don't need is federal abortion police, and the federal government definitely has no place using tax money to fund abortion clinics (even if you LOVE abortion.)

We have huge problems in this country right now. Worst case for the abortion issue is that a handful of states outlaw it. Worst case for our economic/foreign policy problems, along with the encroachment of our civil rights, is so much worse, and so much more immediate. We're in severe trouble right now and there's only one guy who we can trust to actually do what he says in the running. How can we trust Ron Paul? He's got an impeccable record, and has always voted on his principles. These other jokers are just more of the same bullshit politicians we've had for years.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Kuchinek is not a candidate is he?

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

But that's the point.  Thinking changes.  Morality evolves.  1000 years ago, 100% of people would have said owning slaves was perfectly fine and abortion was a heinous offense.  You could trawl medieval literature and never find a soul who disputed either of these ideas.  Now, 100% of people agree slavery is a hideous offense.  The moral status of abortion is changing as well.

Explodicle - you asked me to say what I think on the issue. Thinking about at what point a clump of cells is to be called human has to be arbitrary.  My view is that if it is capable of living outside the mother's body, it deserves legal protection.  There are abortion clinics where the clump of cells is removed and if it doesn't stop crying real fast, it gets killed.  To me, that is wrong.

The big point here is that none of this gets to be decided by the President; as Explodicle said, all he can do is play political games.  This decision is taken by the supreme Court.  If abortion is your most important issue, then you don't have a democratic way to act on it.  Even if a President is elected that shares your views, and appoints a Supreme Court judge to remove abortion, it still may not happen.  Look at what happened with Bush Senior and David Souter...a once in a generation chance to remove Roe vs. Wade was thrown away.

Who are the other trolls who chose Rick Santorum like I did? ;D

+1

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/408336_370502129632965_122908054392375_1752156_933434029_n.jpg

Exactly. This is why the Constitution is a beautiful and sublime document; it was designed for evolution. Once a law is made, that does not and should not mean that it can't be changed or revised. If in a hundred years the state of California decides that you can marry a plant, I don't see why that shouldn't be their decision to make.

Also, slavery has been generally unpopular since forever. It was extremely unpopular in America among the general population. That's not the point though.

I think this would be a bad way to go about it.

Putting intelligence above morality is, IMHO, only going to have disastrous results.

You'd actually choose candidate A, who is morally weak but brilliant, over candidate B, who is merely of average intelligence but has rock-solid, no-compromise good morals (that you agree with?)

Then don't be too surprised when new, brilliantly creative forms of corruption are used to continue stealing public funds, oppressing political dissidents, and generally contributing to the breakdown of the system.

Forbidding the enslavement of people. I can "enslave" and kill a plant if I so choose, or any group declared not persons, like fetuses. All of the rights described by the federal constitution fly out the window when the federal government refuses to decide to whom they apply. Why not let states decide which rights to protect entirely on their own, if they can pick who gets rights anyways?

Not about grown human slaves, I agree. But pro-lifers would say that abortionists think that way, and bioconservatives would think that way towards non-human intelligences.

Abortion is a distraction issue, people here really vote on that? Instead of rationally choosing the best option you are buying into the emotional appeals. Personally I think this is on purpose, neither major party really has a coherent platform. They both want big government and little government interference at the same time (depending on the issue). The idea that "liberals" want a "socialist utopia" is hypocritical when what "conservatives" want is "strong military". The military will just grow to fill the void created by cutting social programs. As an example, eventually everyone serves in the military so they get VA-offered socialized medicine. Then what?

My point is I think these irrational platforms are maintained on purpose. They may have arisen as the result of various historical factors and politicking, but today they serve to push out any rational voters and make elections a game of emotional appeals and "us vs them." Please don't vote based on abortion. Vote based on the role you think government should play in our society. Should it interfere alot, or little? History has shown that tools given to the government based on these wedge issues just get used later in perverse ways. The same amendment that "freed" the slaves was used to justify corporate personhood.

I would love to hear mark levin's opinion on this. Someone who gets to listen live should call.

The fun part: still 22 people that voted someone else than Ron Paul.

O my, the USA is screwed  ::)

Instead of mindlessly spouting off useless quips from your unesteemed opinion, try forming a coherent statement backed by verifiable facts. It'll make you look like less of a pretentious prick.

Well said.  Nothing worse than people that say "if voting could change anything it would be illegal" and acting as if that made them clever.

Are you saying the majority in your state is illiterate?  Where do you live?

Thank god! I was really worried there until I read your post  :o

President Obama.

He did a stellar job given the sickly obstacles that were put into place.

I want to see the "real" Obama on his second term...

Of course not.  He simply proposes removing court scrutiny from such laws passed by states.


Whoops, there goes;

Katz v. United States
Lawrence v. Texas
Roe v. Wade
Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
probably several more I'm forgetting about

and anything that relies on the precedents from those cases.

That would require a constitutional amendment, since Constitution > Federal > State > Local. If the constitution forbids passing a law that restricts rights, NO ONE at any level can pass laws restricting those rights. All the cases you listed were precisely because someone tried to restrict rights on a more local level.

That hierarchy only applies on issues expressly detailed in the Constitution. On most issues, the order should be Constitution > Local > State > Federal. Most people don't realize that this is what the founders intended.

I think you may be conflating what rights are allowed to be prohibited with what is allowed to be established. Anything is allowed to be established at the local level and up if the constitution doesn't forbid it, but if the constitution says you have free speech or freedom of/from religion, that trumps all laws restricting that freedom all the way to the local level. I.e. if the constitution says you can't have a christian government, not only does that mean you can't have a federal christian government, but that even local town governments can't be established by a church. I'm all for states having rights to decide how they operate, but not for states to make their own decisions to restrict rights otherwise protected by the country as a whole. USA went to war to finally settle that issue.

I wanted to vote for Vermin Supreme. : \

Whoa. The Constitution does not say you can't have a Christian government. It simply dictates the separation of church and state. This was not only to protect religious liberty; the main reason is because our founders had seen the corruption that the churches, especially the Catholic Church, had brought to Europe. Most of our politicians claim to be Christians, so in essence we do have a Christian government; just not a church government. I think that's an important distinction to make. However, there are town governments run by religious organizations: Omish settlements, Mormon towns in the midwest, and Native American reservations (a special case, but still relevant).

As for state's rights and the Civil War/ reconstruction: I think that the Civil War did more damage to America in the long term than most people believe. Lincoln, while an exemplary politician and a man of admirable character, unintentionally helped cause a distortion of how our federal government interacts with the states. In his days in Congress, Lincoln was a strong advocate for the 10th amendment, and had a very moderate stance on slavery; he opposed it, but thought that the best course of action would be to let the states get rid of it on their own, with limited federal involvement. These were tense times, however, and unfortunately Lincoln's only option in his presidency was to exert a lot of Federal power. Of course, he did this in order to preserve the Union, but it had the unintended consequence of increasing the federal government's power disproportionate to the states from what the Founders intended. We've seen increase in power occur with all of our national crises: the entitlement programs of the Great Depression, the hysteria created during the Cold War, and the Patriot Act (etc.) in the modern era. If we do not return the power to the states, America will suffer the fate of all past empires by restricting liberty and abusing power.