Presidential Election: 2012

[Omnis]

Omnis thinks he's something special, but I posted the link two pages ago.

Naw just making commentary on the link you posted.

Lots of living things exist without being at fault for their development. Living things like trees, grass, bacteria, roaches, etc. None of these things have rights merely as a result of being alive. Even things with brainwaves like snakes or pigs don't have rights.... things that can feel pain don't have rights. Human beings have rights because we are self-aware and can respect the rights of others. Fetuses don't fall into either criteria. I don't consider them significantly different than any other part of the mother.



Only because you invented that responsibility. Why should a fetus require protecting any more than a gopher?

Because a fetus and a baby is a human being and grows up to fit your criteria. Is a newborn baby self-aware? Fetuses and babies automatically respect the rights of others-- they are innocent. Can a mother give birth to her child and dump it in the trash can when she decides she doesn't want it to be a part of her anymore? Hell no. That's barbaric. We've gone over this before, and it just boils down to an argument regarding where personhood begins.

If you consent to sex you are automatically assuming the risk of conception. You may substantially lower that risk by using contraception, but there is always still a risk that you are taking on. With rights comes responsibility. As a woman, you have a responsibility to the conceived life that you have helped to create. It is unique life and not to be treated as the equivalent of a toenail.

But, hey, for the sake of practicality, Big man up top will deal with it in the end. Just don't coerce me to be involved or associated with the practice in any way whatsoever.

Now let's get back to watching the big tent elephant show.

 

[Danoff]

Hogwash. You said the ability to observe others rights is when one obtains their right to life. That is nowhere near birth.

Doesn't mean the law can't be conservative/convenient to make sure we don't leave anyone out. The easy (not principled, just easy) line to draw is birth because that is a point prior to self-awareness but after the mother's rights to her body are no longer in conflict.

Because a fetus and a baby is a human being and grows up to fit your criteria. Is a newborn baby self-aware? Fetuses and babies automatically respect the rights of others-- they are innocent.

...also trees, clouds, and rocks (note that they don't have rights).

Can a mother give birth to her child and dump it in the trash can when she decides she doesn't want it to be a part of her anymore? Hell no. That's barbaric. We've gone over this before, and it just boils down to an argument regarding where personhood begins.

Medically we become distinct from other species (in ways that pertain to rights) well after birth (not much point in arguing that). The easy legal line to draw for protecting human beings is at birth since it ensures that nobody gets left out but without sacrificing the mother's rights.

If you consent to sex you are automatically assuming the risk of conception. You may substantially lower that risk by using contraception, but there is always still a risk that you are taking on. With rights comes responsibility. As a woman, you have a responsibility to the conceived life that you have helped to create.

...because you say so. I say that's what abortion is for.

 

[Omnis]

Viability precedes birth. And trees, rocks, and clouds are not people nor do they have the potential to ever become lawful persons.

 

[Danoff]

Viability precedes birth.

...also very much precedes self-awareness and conflicts with mother's body rights.

 

[CSLACR]

Human beings have rights because they can observe the rights of others - not the case for a fetus. Refusal to allow abortion violates the rights of the mother - someone who is actually protected by the constitution. When you murder a pregnant woman, you murder the woman and a fetus that was wanted, that she was going to carry to term, that was eventually going to become a person because the mother had chosen to have it. If you murder a pregnant woman who was on her way to the abortion clinic presumably we should count it as a single murder because the fetus was not going to be carried to term by the only person who gets to make that decision.

If you believe that's the only reason a human being deserves rights.
However, by that rational, a 1 month old can also be murdered, because they are incapable of observing the rights of others.

You've also given a woman a right, to which I'm not sure, aside from killing a human being, which is observed as murder if anyone else does it.
Tell me how a mother has a right to kill an unborn child, and I'll tell you how that does not recognize the right of a father to have his child which is already created.

 

[Dapper]

The real problem is the word rights, or their origin at least. We simply are not born with rights, rights are a result of our way of life and the ability to observe anything, much less other's rights, is not a requirement for all basic rights.

 

[Keef]

Broes, this isn't the Human Rights thread. The Human Rights thread is the Human Rights thread.

Ron Paul doesn't care. He's running for President, an office which isn't allowed to make decisions like this anyway. His opinion is irrelevant - he has stated he will preside by the Constitution, not by his own personal views.

So...back to the election then...

 

[Danoff]

If you believe that's the only reason a human being deserves rights.

It's not.

We simply are not born with rights, rights are a result of our way of life and the ability to observe anything, much less other's rights, is not a requirement for all basic rights.

Incorrect. I've explained this in great detail in the Human Rights thread and the Abortion thread.

 

[FoolKiller]

I agree with a lot of things Paul says, but I'm not sure whether I fully understand his views on same-sex marriages, and I'm not really a fan of this pro-life, anti-abortion thing.

Having read his books, and seen him devote sections to explaining this in detail, I can explain it.

It would be like someone saying they don't think you should drink alcohol, but they won't stop you from it because it isn't their responsibility.

Ron Paul, personally, believes in "traditional" marriage, but he does not believe that it should be regulated by the government. He recognizes that in order for a person to tell the government to not allow gay marriage they are also asking the government to allow all other kinds of marriage. No one, whether you agree with or understand their lifestyle or not, should have to ask the government's permission to create a financial and personal lifelong commitment with another person.

Similarly, he disagrees with abortion. He gives a detailed description of his residency days where a premature born infant and an abortion that he was required to participate in were the same developmental age and how drastically different each was treated. He didn't know why he saw two very similar fetuses fighting to live and one was ignored as waste and the other had everyone doing everything possible to save its life. It seemed ridiculously arbitrary to him for two lives to be treated so differently. That is why he is personally pro-life.

But legally, he recognizes that abortion does not fall under the Constitutional powers of Congress. To outlaw it means to make it some form of murder. In the United States a murder committed within the boundaries of a state are the jurisdiction of the state. It has no federal jurisdiction if you want it to be illegal. And if we are to make abortion legal as protecting a woman's right to her body, then he believes it is very hypocritical that we ban the use of various substances, suicide, enforce the wearing of seat belts and helmets, and so forth. If we are to say killing a living human at any stage of development is a matter of the rights to one's own body then he challenges all who think that to truly defend the right to one's own body.

That's just not the right answer, no matter which side you take. If you're pro-life you cannot allow states to legalize murder.

Murder is a matter of state jurisdiction unless it meets specific criteria. And as I doubt the fetus in question is a federal or foreign official, or that it is illegal for pregnant women to cross state lines it cannot have federal jurisdiction.

If you're pro-choice you cannot allow states to violate the woman's rights to her own body.

While this is true, the very lack of protecting the rights to one's own body shows that no law legalizing abortion is about this.

Bill of rights gives the federal government a directive to protect life of all individuals who have a right to it.... it is not a state matter any more than your right to life is.

It does? Which of the 10 amendments gives this directive?

• Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
• Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
• Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
• Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
• Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
• Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
• Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
• Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
• Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
• Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

The Constitution lists only three crimes the federal government has jurisdiction over; treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Later the 13th Amendment added slavery. It mentions bribery, but only in relation to disqualifying an individual from being president. It does not give Congress the power to determine the punishment of bribery.

I was! Very proudly too!

Out of curiosity, were you involved in the campaign at all? I know he had a ton of support from your area (which said a lot about locally raised Trey Grayson) and any time I would visit my brother I would see tons of Rand Paul stuff everywhere.

 

[Keef]

So I watched this interview on Ron Paul with Piers Morgan. At the end he address Paul's errant Twitter post dissing/joking about Jon Huntsman...



Lo and behold, Jon Huntsman was on the show immediately after, where he presumably gave his reaction to that tweet. But for the life of me I cannot find a clip of his reaction. Didn't anybody record it? I realize nobody wants to hear anything Huntsman has to say, but surely somebody recorded and uploaded it. Anybody have a link?

EDIT: Former CIA Chief Michael Scheuer endorses Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.

 

[Danoff]

But legally, he recognizes that abortion does not fall under the Constitutional powers of Congress. To outlaw it means to make it some form of murder. In the United States a murder committed within the boundaries of a state are the jurisdiction of the state.

Nope. Right the right to life is a federal guarantee both in the constitution and famously in the declaration of independence (which laid out the reason for the constitution to begin with and should be considered a founding document). States are tasked with enforcing it.

If you question this ask yourself the following - can a state make murder legal? The answer is no, it would violate any semblance human rights and everything the bill of rights stands for. Even if it didn't say you have a right to life (which it does), clearly the other rights rest on this point.

It does? Which of the 10 amendments gives this directive?

• Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
• Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
• Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
• Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
  [*]Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
• Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
• Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
• Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
• Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
• Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Abortion falls under all three - life, liberty, and property.

 

[YSSMAN]

Ron Paul is the middle class's best friend and won the -$50k and the under-40 votes by a landslide.

The statistic they were throwing around this afternoon was that Ron Paul received nearly 50% of the votes of people under 40, which is a shocking figure when you attempt to consider the longevity of the GOP as a party among young, educated people. As he points out frequently, he's more than capable of bringing in voters who are young, independent, and in some cases, even Democrats. It throws every conception of the GOP out the window.

Ignoring a constituency like that essentially puts you dead in the water. By ignoring Ron Paul, the GOP establishment sets things up to a) Disenfranchise a significant portion of their (young) voting base, leaving them to vote for Obama, or vote for no one at all, or b) Have Ron Paul run as an Independent, steal a significant number of votes from a GOP candidate, entirely sealing their fate.

RE: Abortion

Its a issue used to distract voters, plain and simple. The fact that the GOP is pushing so hard for this shows that they're very afraid of losing, and will be using this tactic to pad their numbers with values-voters. It worked all the way through the Bush years, and I assume they see no reason why it wouldn't work again.

 

[FoolKiller]

If you question this ask yourself the following - can a state make murder legal? The answer is no,

Technically, they can. There are various degrees of murder and how it is seen by law. In same cases self-defense can have no penalties, in others it is still punishable. The varying degrees of homicide have many different definitions and legal outcomes and very different punishments and these will vary from state to state.

Abortion falls under all three - life, liberty, and property.

If we choose to ignore the context this is placed in, as it is a right of protection from the government in regard to criminal punishment, then you have a point. But that is not directing the federal government to intervene in any case of murder. What you are arguing is that all cases of homicide be a federal crime. You are putting every minor accidental death case under federal jurisdiction, sending FBI agents in to investigate every death. That does not happen, and has never been the case. Or do you think they used case trial terminology, like "without due process" just to justify when the government can violate those rights. Technically, if we apply this thought that it refers to all homicide then "without due process" could also allow homicide not done by the state, so long as a judge ruled it OK after a fair trial.

It protects you from a death sentence, imprisonment, or fine without due process. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is defining the rights of individuals as protections from the government. Similarly, the 4th Amendment does not protect you from voyeurism, trespassing, or theft by other individuals. That is why they are separate laws and why stalking is still not a crime in many places and paparazzi can still exist. The 2nd Amendment does not protect you from having a property owner refusing to allow you to keep a weapon in an apartment or place of bsuiness. The 8th Amendment does not protect you from paying high fees on late payments or high interest rates.

If you ignore context completely then the US Bill of Rights becomes just as contradictory as the UN's.

 

[Dapper]

Incorrect..

You are incorrect.

I've explained this in great detail in the Human Rights thread and the Abortion thread.

And it is all just your opinion, and you've yet to explain anything other than your thoughts.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I've covered all of that at great length in the abortion thread, so there's not much point in repeating the argument here. The short answer to this is that you draw the line at a conservative/convenient point that doesn't trample someone else's rights. Birth being the obvious choice.

That's an easy cop-out I would think that you could quote yourself at least explaining to us what you really mean. However, I guess that is too much of a inconvience when trying to have a intellegent debate. Quite lazy.

 

[Touring Mars]

So Ron Paul won Iowa. Tied with Romney and Butt-Froth. Each of them got 6 delegates a piece.

I'm not overly familiar with how the delegates are alloted, but I was under the impression that the result of the Iowa caucus doesn't actually guarantee any candidate any delegates. So far, I've seen articles declaring that Ron Paul will get no delegates, and other pro-Paul sites which seem to suggest that he will get as many as anyone else...

Well now that Santorum has made a splash it's only a matter of time before he goes down on the next poll.

 

[Omnis]

I'm not an expert on the way Iowa does it, but my understanding is that the popular vote is not binding. Delegates are selected independently, and Paul, Romney, and Santorum now have 7 delegates each, with what I understand to be the majority of delegate-alternates being Ron Paul supporters.

 

[BobK]

I don't think congress realizes that since they passed this whole NDAA thing, the next president could arrest all 535 of them and hold them indefinitely.

Sig-worthy stuff there! 👍

 

[Danoff]

Technically, they can. There are various degrees of murder and how it is seen by law. In same cases self-defense can have no penalties, in others it is still punishable. The varying degrees of homicide have many different definitions and legal outcomes and very different punishments and these will vary from state to state.

All subject to the federal constitution and a ruling on the interpretation of that constitution by the supreme court. The buck stops federally. States are required to comply with the constitution, and state law is overturned if it doesn't interpret the constitution properly.

If we choose to ignore the context this is placed in, as it is a right of protection from the government in regard to criminal punishment, then you have a point. But that is not directing the federal government to intervene in any case of murder. What you are arguing is that all cases of homicide be a federal crime. You are putting every minor accidental death case under federal jurisdiction, sending FBI agents in to investigate every death.

Not at all. What I am arguing is that the right to life is a constitutional guarantee that states have to enforce and interpret correctly or state law will be corrected by the supreme court.

What you seem to be arguing is that free speech is a human right that is protect by the constitution, but life, liberty, and property is not. That makes exactly zero sense.

That does not happen, and has never been the case. Or do you think they used case trial terminology, like "without due process" just to justify when the government can violate those rights. Technically, if we apply this thought that it refers to all homicide then "without due process" could also allow homicide not done by the state, so long as a judge ruled it OK after a fair trial.

It can't be said any differently. The right to life is forfeit if you commit certain crimes - that's why they have to include a discussion of due process of law.

Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is defining the rights of individuals as protections from the government. Similarly, the 4th Amendment does not protect you from voyeurism, trespassing, or theft by other individuals. That is why they are separate laws and why stalking is still not a crime in many places and paparazzi can still exist. The 2nd Amendment does not protect you from having a property owner refusing to allow you to keep a weapon in an apartment or place of bsuiness. The 8th Amendment does not protect you from paying high fees on late payments or high interest rates.

So the federal government can't murder you but states can... violates equal protection. Here's wikipedia:

[T]he Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments

If you ignore context completely then the US Bill of Rights becomes just as contradictory as the UN's.

Uncalled for. Let's try to keep the gloves up.

And it is all just your opinion, and you've yet to explain anything other than your thoughts.

Yes that's true... unless you actually read any of it.

That's an easy cop-out I would think that you could quote yourself at least explaining to us what you really mean. However, I guess that is too much of a inconvience when trying to have a intellegent debate. Quite lazy.

I'm trying not to hijack this thread just completely. There is a thread to discuss this topic. I suggest if you wish to keep discussing this that we take it there. I summarized my view for you, I don't know what else you want me to do here without violating the AUP.

 

[shmogt]

 

[Danoff]

Ok, apologies for the double-post but I think this deserves it's own post.

The interpretation of the equal protection clause to cover person-to-person action rather than simply protection from government falls under something called "Substantive Due Process" rather than "Procedural Due Process".

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

SDP = Susbstantive Due Process

SDP is to be distinguished from procedural due process (PDP). The distinction arises from the phrase "due process of law" (emphasis supplied).[4] PDP aims to protect individuals from the coercive power of government by ensuring that adjudication processes under valid laws are fair and impartial (e.g., the right to sufficient notice, the right to an impartial arbiter, the right to give testimony and admit relevant evidence at hearings, etc.).[4] In contrast, SDP aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments which exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts find the majority's enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the process of enforcement actually is.[4]

It gets worse:

The Courts have viewed the Due Process Clause, and sometimes other clauses of the Constitution, as embracing those fundamental rights that are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”[7] Just what those rights are is not always clear, nor is the Supreme Court's authority to enforce such unenumerated rights clear.[8] Some of those rights have long histories or “are deeply rooted” in American society.
The courts have largely abandoned the Lochner era approach (ca. 1897-1937) when substantive due process was used to strike down minimum wage and labor laws in order to protect freedom of contract. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided that numerous other freedoms that do not appear in the plain text of the Constitution are nevertheless protected by the Constitution. If these rights were not protected by the federal courts' doctrine of substantive due process, they could nevertheless be protected in other ways; for example, it is possible that some of these rights could be protected by other provisions of the state or federal constitutions,[9] and alternatively they could be protected by legislatures.[10][11]
Today, the Court focuses on three types of rights under substantive due process in the Fourteenth Amendment,[citation needed] which originated in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938), footnote 4. Those three types of rights are:
the rights enumerated in and derived from the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights (e.g., the Eighth Amendment);
the right to participate in the political process (e.g., the rights of voting, association, and free speech); and
the rights of “discrete and insular minorities.”
The Court usually looks first to see if there is a fundamental right, by examining if the right can be found deeply rooted in American history and traditions. Where the right is not a fundamental right, the court applies a rational basis test: if the violation of the right can be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, then the law is held valid. If the court establishes that the right being violated is a fundamental right, it applies strict scrutiny. This test inquires into whether there is a compelling state interest being furthered by the violation of the right, and whether the law in question is narrowly tailored to address the state interest.

SDP is a contested interpretation of the due process clause, and I would suspect that Ron Paul would claim that the due process clause applies only to PDP - which I find to be an overly narrow interpretation, but he's entitled to his opinion.

So I'll retract my original statement that the US constitution covers this and simply say that if (contested) it doesn't cover it, it ought to cover it. In the end though, the federal code (not the constitution) covers murder.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/51/1111

So even if person-to-person murder is not covered in the constitution (where it should clearly be covered), it is covered in the federal penal code which, via supremacy, requires states to enforce it.

In conclusion, if a state attempted to legalize and permit murder, such an act would correctly be stricken down by the supreme court as a failure to follow federal law. Once again, abortion is a federal issue.

 

[Dapper]

Yes that's true... unless you actually read any of it.

I read what you think.

I think that the reason human beings have rights is because we're self-aware. We have the capacity to understand injustice, and we have to have the capacity to understand our own nature to be able to accomplish that. I think with self-awareness comes a basic understanding of justice - even if communication isn't possible. I think children understand their own nature well enough to understand justice before they're able to communicate - which leaves the possibility for some animals to understand injustice even though they can't tell us in those words.

Most animals are not self-aware - and I think without that you can't have rights, because you can't understand them. You have to be capable of respecting the rights of others in order to have rights (which is why we put criminals in jail). That, effectively, "earns" you your rights.

You have nothing but thoughts based on other thoughts.

And the idea that children several years in age still have no rights, including a right to life, and anyone born without the mental ability, or has a deteriorated mental ability due to aging or other medical problems, that renders them incapable of the stuff you think means they have no rights, including a right to life, is absolutely wrong.

 

[Danoff]

I read what you think.

You quoted me without context. Read the post before that one. I was asked what I "thought", specifically... with that word. I phrased my response in that form.

You have nothing but thoughts based on other thoughts.

We've been through this many times and I've defeated this notion many times. I'll do it again for the heck of it.

"Might makes right" requires a subjective evaluation that the ability to produce force is objectively superior to the lack of ability to produce force. Since there is no objective basis for "might makes right", we are left with "all men are created equal". That equality results in the inability to justly initiate force. That establishes rights - and it is pure reason, not opinion.

And the idea that children several years in age still have no rights... is absolutely wrong.

Children lack many fundamental rights, this is appropriate given the nature of rights.

And the idea that children several years in age still have no rights, including a right to life

You have conveniently ignored the fact that I have repeatedly stated that the right to life should pragmatically be extended at birth.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Out of curiosity, were you involved in the campaign at all? I know he had a ton of support from your area (which said a lot about locally raised Trey Grayson) and any time I would visit my brother I would see tons of Rand Paul stuff everywhere.

I was not involved in any official way, just the usual stickers and talking to anyone who would listen and use their critical thinking skills. The majority of people that I talked to were actually surprisingly informed and were ready to jump on Rand's bandwagon on their own. The only negative responses came from the people who were misinformed or completely ignorant of the whole thing. Probably Faux News viewers. 💡

The statistic they were throwing around this afternoon was that Ron Paul received nearly 50% of the votes of people under 40, which is a shocking figure when you attempt to consider the longevity of the GOP as a party among young, educated people. As he points out frequently, he's more than capable of bringing in voters who are young, independent, and in some cases, even Democrats. It throws every conception of the GOP out the window.

Ignoring a constituency like that essentially puts you dead in the water. By ignoring Ron Paul, the GOP establishment sets things up to a) Disenfranchise a significant portion of their (young) voting base, leaving them to vote for Obama, or vote for no one at all, or b) Have Ron Paul run as an Independent, steal a significant number of votes from a GOP candidate, entirely sealing their fate.

RE: Abortion

Its a issue used to distract voters, plain and simple. The fact that the GOP is pushing so hard for this shows that they're very afraid of losing, and will be using this tactic to pad their numbers with values-voters. It worked all the way through the Bush years, and I assume they see no reason why it wouldn't work again.

Word. Plain and simple truth. I don't give two ***** either way and I am sick and tired of hearing and seeing these fundamentalists vote solely on a non-issue. If they cared half as much about the life we lead after birth, as they do about getting every possible child born, we would not be having the discussion in the first place. Or at least, it would be a less pressing issue. Infant mortality rates are infinitesimal now compared to ages past and frankly, how many people do we need? Does everyone with working sex organs need to pass on their genes? No. Abortion serves it's purpose just as much as birth. Some people are able to responsibly handle it and some aren't. Some will do both and some will never do either. And Government laws will not stop either. So, being unenforceable, lets not make laws about it.

 

[Joey D]

I don't think congress realizes that since they passed this whole NDAA thing, the next president could arrest all 535 of them and hold them indefinitely.

If any president made that campaign promise they'd have my vote, what those knuckleheads have done to the country they deserve to be held indefinitely.

I think the scariest thing about the upcoming elections is that one of them is going to win and be the leader of the free world for four years. We were promised change with Obama, and didn't get it. All the GOP'er promising change are going to lead us right down the same path and in four years time we will still be in the same situation or worse.

It's pretty hard to get behind a candidate when your government has given up on you. They've taken away rights, they are proposing to censor the internet, we are in debt up to our eyeballs and they are threatening to get us involved in yet another war...but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The talk about war with Iran though really made me see how shady the government is and I think Obama is going to use it to justify a reelection. Presidents aren't typically changed during a wartime, so if we are fighting Iran people will be more likely to vote for Obama since he is "commanding" our troops. I could be off the mark but judging what this administration is capable of I wouldn't put it pass them, I mean it worked for Bush right and his War on "Turreour".

I am still at a tremendous loss on who to vote for and if I don't find anyone worthy of my vote, I'm going to with hold it or for the lack of anything better write in someone....or I could just be completely daft and vote for Roseanne Barr .

 

[Dapper]

You quoted me without context. Read the post before that one. I was asked what I "thought", specifically... with that word. I phrased my response in that form.

To properly announce one's opinion one should start with 'I think', precisely what you did when you gave an opinion.

"Might makes right" requires a subjective evaluation that the ability to produce force is objectively superior to the lack of ability to produce force. Since there is no objective basis for "might makes right", we are left with "all men are created equal". That equality results in the inability to justly initiate force. That establishes rights - and it is pure reason, not opinion.

Besides this is fundamentally wrong, none of this is even possible without living in a society. If "all men are created equal" then everyone has equal rights. You've expressed the opposite. When one can't observe rights you say they have no rights, yet they are equal. "All men are created equal" is a subjective phrase and you use it as if it is objective (sometimes when it is convenient), and made a fallacy doing so (if it's not A, "might makes right", it must be B, "all men are created equal"). This makes your entire argument a fallacy.The way you think rights are established is all subjective. It arose in your brain, uses subjective words and phrases and can't be tested.

All disregarding the fact you think rights are only there (I don't know where precisely) if they are observed.

You have conveniently ignored the fact that I have repeatedly stated that the right to life should pragmatically be extended at birth.

Just another contradiction. You can't have it both ways. Either people have rights when they observe rights or they don't.

What you are saying, whether you know it or not, is people have rights when they observe the rights of others' who can observe the rights of others, and the acts of killing, raping or any other immoral behavior is not immoral to do to a person incapable of observing rights (because according to you they have no rights), but don't forget the subjective exceptions only you, danoff, can come up with.

 

[Danoff]

To properly announce one's opinion one should start with 'I think', precisely what you did when you gave an opinion.

Non-responsive.

Besides this is fundamentally wrong, none of this is even possible without living in a society. If "all men are created equal" then everyone has equal rights. You've expressed the opposite. When one can't observe rights you say they have no rights, yet they are equal.

You can do it... just think about it a little longer.

"All men are created equal" is a subjective phrase and you use it as if it is objective (sometimes when it is convenient), and made a fallacy doing so (if it's not A, "might makes right", it must be B, "all men are created equal").

You missed a step (because I glossed over it). Lack of objective reasoning (in general) results in equality.

All disregarding the fact you think rights are only there (I don't know where precisely) if they are observed.

Oooh tricky. The way you worded that the statement is not correct, but I know what you're getting at. Your rights exist regardless of whether they are observed by others. You forfeit your rights by demonstrating that you cannot observe the rights of others. So depending on who is doing the observing and who's rights you're talking about the above statement can either be true or false.

Just another contradiction. You can't have it both ways. Either people have rights when they observe rights or they don't.

It's a practical consideration, not a principled one.

What you are saying, whether you know it or not, is people have rights when they observe the rights of others' who can observe the rights of others, and the acts of killing, raping or any other immoral behavior is not immoral to do to a person incapable of observing rights (because according to you they have no rights)

Correct within the bounds of a proportionate response. We kill people (death penalty) who demonstrate that they cannot observe other's right to life. We strip people of their liberty when they refuse to observe other's right to property, or when they simply demonstrate a lack of capacity to do so (such as mental handicaps or insanity).

How does all of this tie in to the presidential election?

It has been stated in this thread that the president's views on abortion are not an important factor in whether to vote for him since he should follow the rules of government and leave abortion law to the states.

However, abortion is the domain of the supreme court (through at least the federal penal code for murder if not the constitution). The president appoints members of the supreme court and so the president's reasoning on abortion can influence whether abortion remains legal. Fundamentally, abortion is a human rights issue (thus the discussion above) and therefore has to be an issue for the supreme court.

Is any of this a good reason not to vote for Ron Paul? Probably not if you're pro choice. Ron Paul should be expected not to make abortion an issue at the federal level based on what he has said. That being said, I would not be shocked if he appointed a pro-lifer to the court either. He's not exactly a safe candidate from an abortion perspective if you're either pro-choice or pro-life. You just have to care more about other issues.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm trying not to hijack this thread just completely. There is a thread to discuss this topic. I suggest if you wish to keep discussing this that we take it there. I summarized my view for you, I don't know what else you want me to do here without violating the AUP.

Once again it's not hijacking the topic, the topic is the Presidential election and part of that are the issues, and this is one of the issue. So for you to cop-out again with this and not even link us to your post at least, shows a lack of integrity for your argument. How would you violate AUP when the Presidential Election as a topic covers a vast array of topics/issues, your view or rules and laws is skewed all around it seems.

 

[Keef]

I think one very important point that Ron Paul needs to make very public is the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. This is a very important issue for him because most people who are caught up on his foreign policy are scared away partly by this term "isolationism", which is not what Paul is anyway, and their fear is exacerbated by the media at large who continue to call him an isolationist. He needs to hammer home the definitions of these terms and explain the difference forcefully, on TV and in the media, and he needs to do it very soon.

 

[CSLACR]

Danoff FollKiller =

Totally agreed with FK, BTW.