Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70

Thread: Need help picking to vote for

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Florissant, Mo
    Posts
    227

    Need help picking to vote for

    Ok, I will make this short and sweet. I'm not very up on all the politicans etc. Obama... great speaker... we just don't see "eye to eye" on what applies to 98% of everyone. I can't live on "HOPE".

    Newt... he reminds me too much of "that kid" while growing up... who would call you names, take your money and candy, and call you ugly. Plus, for me... he gives me a deep feeling of... can't be trusted.

    Ron Paul... love a lot of what he says/ said. But I have heard that he's basically "anti-" unions. Is this true?

    Romoni... I feel that he say things just to get your vote and like every Rep... forget about you once they are in office.

    What are your thoughts?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Hardbuck90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, WA
    Posts
    76
    I'm voting for Ron Paul. I try not let my vote be decided by a specific party, for me it comes down to who I agree with on the most issues and they have to have a level head in my opinion.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Florissant, Mo
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardbuck90 View Post
    I'm voting for Ron Paul. I try not let my vote be decided by a specific party, for me it comes down to who I agree with on the most issues and they have to have a level head in my opinion.
    Thats good... even I do that, to a certain degree... but its good to really understand their background and how the "party" behave. Think about it... Saddam speak of love etc to his people... but look how a DEVIL he was. For me... words only go so far. Of course we really don't know until that day happens when they take office. Just want more facts and how other people view the running parties.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    What's wrong with being for individuals instead of unions? Ron Paul won't outlaw unions, just don't expect him to try and destroy businesses for the benefit of union bosses.

    Edit: he's the only one left that is for the constitution as written and limited government.
    Last edited by Daylen; 01-25-2012 at 09:52 PM.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Florissant, Mo
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    What's wrong with being for individuals instead of unions? Ron Paul won't outlaw unions, just don't expect him to try and destroy businesses for the benefit of union bosses.

    Edit: he's the only one left that is for the constitution as written and limited government.
    That's true (he's the only one left that is for the consititution...). Some waht I am "pro union"... not fully. I have seen where the union is a great benift. Case in point. At my job, is a union shop... in a nut shell... our boss had told us recently..."I enjoyed firing people..." And it basically gave us a feeling of... "who's next". But with the union, there's a process etc to go through unless its something really big you messed up at.

    Now, with one of the close by hospiltals, they are not union...and its really... REALLY easy to get fired from there. In fact they have a high turn over rate. Probably on average (I'm just guessing, about 1 person every two months, or they quit) about someone every few weeks or so.

    If that's his only "downfall", then I'm really close to voting for him.

    Some people may not understand why people vote for Democrate. Its rooted in history. From my understanding... Democrates where more for the above middle range and higher and the Repulicians where for the middle class and some poor. Somewhere in history it got switch... then the Dem where for the poor and middle class and the Repub where for the upper class. Now it seems that Dem plays on the hopes and dreams of the poor and the middle class pays for everyone's benifts while the Repub are for those who can help each other of the same class and status. IE, Eron, Tyco, insider trading, etc. Yeah, they "tell" us those people are going to pay and go to "jail". But do they? Really, have anyone visit these people to ensure they are in jail? Then they go to "speical" jails for white collar crimes. Its amazing, if you get caught with crack, its about a year in jail for each rock you have. If you mastermind a down fall of a company, you get maybe 10 years, a book to talk about it, interviews, and probably a movie. Not to mention to get hired by the local Feds so that you can teach them your "ways of wisdom".

    I may be wrong about it... it just what I see and hear from things going on through the nation over the past 20 years.
    Last edited by Firedawg314; 01-26-2012 at 12:15 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Hardbuck90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, WA
    Posts
    76
    Also just because someone is anti union that is just his opinion, he's running for president not king. I believe in the idea of unions but lately I've seen quite of few unions overstepping their bounds and we all know about the FOP. As also stated Ron Paul is for the limiting of government which is refreshing just as a belief.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    If you need someone else's help figuring out who/what to vote for, how about I do your voting for you and save you the time and effort associated with the voting process.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Firedawg314 View Post
    That's true (he's the only one left that is for the consititution...). Some waht I am "pro union"... not fully. I have seen where the union is a great benift. Case in point. At my job, is a union shop... in a nut shell... our boss had told us recently..."I enjoyed firing people..." And it basically gave us a feeling of... "who's next". But with the union, there's a process etc to go through unless its something really big you messed up at.

    Now, with one of the close by hospiltals, they are not union...and its really... REALLY easy to get fired from there. In fact they have a high turn over rate. Probably on average (I'm just guessing, about 1 person every two months, or they quit) about someone every few weeks or so.

    If that's his only "downfall", then I'm really close to voting for him.

    Some people may not understand why people vote for Democrate. Its rooted in history. From my understanding... Democrates where more for the above middle range and higher and the Repulicians where for the middle class and some poor. Somewhere in history it got switch... then the Dem where for the poor and middle class and the Repub where for the upper class. Now it seems that Dem plays on the hopes and dreams of the poor and the middle class pays for everyone's benifts while the Repub are for those who can help each other of the same class and status. IE, Eron, Tyco, insider trading, etc. Yeah, they "tell" us those people are going to pay and go to "jail". But do they? Really, have anyone visit these people to ensure they are in jail? Then they go to "speical" jails for white collar crimes. Its amazing, if you get caught with crack, its about a year in jail for each rock you have. If you mastermind a down fall of a company, you get maybe 10 years, a book to talk about it, interviews, and probably a movie. Not to mention to get hired by the local Feds so that you can teach them your "ways of wisdom".

    I may be wrong about it... it just what I see and hear from things going on through the nation over the past 20 years.
    If unions are simply people associating and deciding to strike or not and negotiating as one unit I don't think any Republicans are going to stop or fight that. What is being called "anti-union" is where the government comes in and doesn't allow a company to hire anyone but union labor and forces people who do not want to be in a union to pay dues to the union. Or in the recent Boeing case where the fed bureaucrats decided to pick the union as the winner and didn't allow Boeing to open a plant in a nonunion state. Such policies are as tyrannical as it gets and only help stooges. If you don't like being at a company with a ****** boss then leave.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Florissant, Mo
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    If unions are simply people associating and deciding to strike or not and negotiating as one unit I don't think any Republicans are going to stop or fight that. What is being called "anti-union" is where the government comes in and doesn't allow a company to hire anyone but union labor and forces people who do not want to be in a union to pay dues to the union. Or in the recent Boeing case where the fed bureaucrats decided to pick the union as the winner and didn't allow Boeing to open a plant in a nonunion state. Such policies are as tyrannical as it gets and only help stooges. If you don't like being at a company with a ****** boss then leave.
    First, its easiers said that done to leave a good paying job if you don't have any other skills or education. And even with education, doesn't mean a company will hire you. Honestly, WHO has that "perfect" degree that will hire you and pay you the sallary you want?

    To a certain degree you are right. I have close people in unions as in Boeing, emergency departments etc. From what I have seen, read, and been in…
    In general, what I have discover in many places… the union/shops do not want to hire more people- to ask for higher wages and more over time, etc. I remember recently, Boeing’s union in STL was talking about going to strike because of “few bucks” in hourly wage. To a certain extent I can see it and other times… you are like… I really don’t want to go on strike and risk losing your job for an extra $3,000 or less a year salary. But you are earning about $60,000 a year within the first 3 years of employment. I can see certain things as far “working more hours, harder tasks etc.” that will equal a bit more in pay. I think in general, the government wanted that plant to be open there… but with politics etc., there’s more to it than what you will see on the news or the general worker telling you. Sometimes you don’t need to open a new plant… just keep the pay the same and hire more people.
    But in every city/ county, businesses sometime get a TIFF. Basically from what I understand, it allows the company to pay fewer taxes for about 25 years. After that, they need to pay the full amount. Sometimes it can average about $1,000,000 a year in taxes. For example, Wal-Mart. Normally they get a TIFF and will stay there for until the TIFF “time” runs out. Then move. It’s easier to move across the street of a differnt zip code/ county line, etc. and build a new building, than pay its full share of taxes. The general public thinks it’s “fun and fair game” to shop there in their community. Until the TIFF runs out and then the company “announces” they have to relocate. Now, your city is left with a huge empty building. The closes thing that could handle the rent is a new/ another mega church… which is “tax exempt”. I know this was getting a bit off subject but it all ties in together.
    Even at my job, and others who I communicate with…on one hand, they want more workers to work with them… but on the other hand, they don’t want new workers because the job/shop, etc. can try to split that salary up into theirs. If you get some honest people to talk to you, many departments (emergency; police, fire, medics, etc.) in the county (not city) are earning near 6 figures and over… at the lowest rank. To help keep those high paying jobs, they don’t hire as many people. I don’t want to put anyone out there… but there are some cops with only 4 years on the job earning almost $100,000 a year. Do I think they are worth it…yes. But it’s wild seeing what a district person makes vs. a city employee. That same time and rank in a city department averages about $38,000 a year….This even works for school districts. I hate when some school teachers try to compare their salary to a city school teacher. The city (i.e. ST Louis city) earns about $40,000 a year and that’s after a number of years of working. But you get into many school districts even the worse ones, they earn about $50,000-75,000 per year starting off. Depending if they have a BA or Masters or higher. But are they worth it, yes… do the city needs to pay its teachers and emergency departments more… yes… but will they, NO. It’s all about politics. A city can say “we can’t afford to pay you that” but somehow they can always go over budget for buying signs, travel, and other crazy things. That’s a BIG difference…unions. It has positive and negative feedbacks.
    But back to Ron Paul… It’s good to hear he’s not trying to get rid of unions. They have their place. If it wasn’t for unions… labor workers would probably earn less than $20,000 a year. McDonalds wouldn’t have such great benefits compared to 20 years ago, etc. Always remember, big businesses are there to MAKE MONEY. The less you are paid, the more they make. If there was a computer/machine… ok there is… but when it comes on the market to replace you in your job.. Don’t think a company won’t pay to have it. With a union, can help to slow down that type of progression. Think of unions as AARP. But like I said… some things they fight for just blows me away.

  10. #10
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Unions, as they are now and for the most part, are complete ********. If a group of workers want to get together for some collective bargaining, thats fine but when a union can force someone to join/pay/abide by their stupid rules, is another thing.

    Recently the union at my dads job (he has to join to work) shut down the job 2 or 3 times for stupid things. They have the "right" to tell the company that is signing the checks that "their" workers won't work under unsafe condition. The company decided that, since the contract ran out at the 1st of the new year, they won't be renewing with the union. So they were pulling trucks with headlights not working (they only worked in the day, all had both working on one setting (Ie: one wouldn't work on high/low), they wouldn't allow my father to operate the hoe that he was on because it was missing a step, on the opposite side than you use. So people who wanted to work, were willing to work, and can safely (the trucks were like that for months) work couldn't work because unions.

    Unions have hurt this country, our jobs are going over seas because of unions and greed. But Ron paul isn't against unions, he is (says/acts like he is) against government.

  11. #11
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Ron Paul is not "anti" anything. He for freedom, personal responsibility and following the constitution. He is for getting the federal government out of everything they are not specifically supposed to be in, and sound money so business can thrive.

    Ron Paul has kept this focus ever since he started in congress. Quit spend money you don't have, stop meddling in other country's affairs, and get the federal government out of business that properly belongs to the states.

    I don't know where you got the idea he was anti-union? Because he wants to get rid of the Federal Dept. of ED? Federal government has no business telling the states anything about how they should educate their citizens. That is simple. DOEd is a big money pit where some try to influence others by use of federal dollars. This needs to stop. or the other DOE...look at what O'b's energy policy has done for us??? doubled the price of gas and made us more dependent...oh yes, and wasting billions on a company the supported him for president, that now is bankrupt, and we, the tax payers get to foot the bill. Ron Paul would have never let that happen in the first place.

    BTW: the "unions" are for the "unions", not the workers anymore anyway. I take anything put out by any "union" with a whole bunch of salt. I think unions have their place, but that place is not to just promote their own continued existence. Anyway, I would like to hear a specific case where Ron Paul has threatened any union...I doubt it has happened. Unless you think that eliminating waste in government is a threat to unions.

    Ron Paul has appeal to the ultra liberal and the thinking independent because he is for personal freedom and responsibility, not government control.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    To someone like Ron Paul, unions are protected as freedom of association but business owners also have private property rights. What he would have a problem with is union-government collusion same as he has a problem with corporate-government collusion. A private company making a voluntary contract with a workers union is perfectly acceptable. Government involvement in the process besides arbitrating a breech of contract is unacceptable. I do beleive that every company should have the right to decide whether they will be an open or closed shop as well.

    Personally, I've worked in both union and nonunion shops and won't set foot in a union one again due to poor work ethic, a feeling of entitlement, the inability to get rid of poor workers and various other shenanigans. Are all union shops like that? No, but once bitten twice shy as they say. That unions were helpful in bringing about change in instances like the coal mines that treated their workers as slaves is irrefutable. That unions are the sole reason for a living wage being paid today is a complete and utter myth. The market dictates what's profitable. Unions helped but only as any voluntary association of people working for a common cause can. They went overboard in many cases and made it unprofitable for companies here but that wouldn't have been possible without collusion with the government. Another myth is that it's EASY to get fired from a private company. This is laughable. We've had people where I work totally abuse the system and sometimes it takes months to get rid of them due to all the regulatory red tape.

    Public sector unions are a whole different ball game. I don't agree with them at all. Public sector unions take our tax money and give it to their selected politicians to vote them more stuff from our tax money thereby taking even more of it and creating a vicious circle. Public workers already get civil service protection anyway.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    Ron Paul is ANTI-choice. He has filed the Sanctity of Life act a half dozen or so times, which would put the government into womens' lives. And he's been lying when he says he won't regulate where the government doesn't belong. Plus, he's never been able to get significant co-sponsors for his House bills, which means he can't get people to support his priorities - what makes us think he can do so in the Executive branch?

    Newt Gingrich has already proved himself a quitter, and the consummate greasy politician. He's an old-school smoky-room snake charmer.

    Rick Santorum is the only one left of the theocrats. I can't vote for a theocrat. "Liberty" as long as it's done their way.

    Mitt Romney is anti-gun. Of all the positions, I think we can fight this one in Congress, but I'm not happy about casting a vote for an anti. I think the country could use his business acumen, so his final platform and VP choice, should he be the nominee, might sway me. MIGHT.

    Obama is a nanny-stater.

    The libertarians will probably run Gary Johnson, who's good on choice, guns, and personal responsibility. But he has focused his campaign so far on what he won't do, and has not put forth what he will do. If the republicans can't run a reasonable ticket, I'll probably vote here. UNLESS the libertarians do as they have in the past and run someone totally unqualified.
    Last edited by Tess; 01-26-2012 at 12:56 PM.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Tess View Post
    Ron Paul is ANTI-choice. He has filed the Sanctity of Life act a half dozen or so times, which would put the government into womens' lives. And he's been lying when he says he won't regulate where the government doesn't belong. Plus, he's never been able to get significant co-sponsors for his House bills, which means he can't get people to support his priorities - what makes us think he can do so in the Executive branch?...
    I don't dispute that Ron is Anti-abortion. I do dispute that he's been lying when he says he won't regulate where the government doesn't belong. If he believes that life starts at conception and that the fetus has equal rights then he certainly isn't lying. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the "Sanctity of Life act" would keep the federal government totally out of it.

    In any case, there is disagreement even among libertarians on the abortion issue. IIRC, there are three different positions taken by libertarians on abortion.

    As far as getting things done as president; one lone member in the house is a lot different than a president with the bully pulpit and veto pen.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    ....put the government in women's lives? Other than abortion, and I have my doubts about abortion, the government is all in everyone's lives. Abortion is not about abortion, but who is gunna pay for the abortion.

    If Ron Paul says 'no tax money' for abortions he is labeled as anti-abortion.

    Everybody is over taxed and over regulated. This ain't gunna change after this election cycle even if Ron Paul is elected. Not everybody gets abortions, not everybody is in a union. not everybody is anti-Obama, but they should be.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    If you are Republican, vote for Romney. If you are Democrat, vote for President Obama. If you are Libertarian, vote for Paul. This election cycle is not a matter of who best align with your Principles as a Republican, if that is what you are, or if that is the banner which the individual you support resides under.

    Paul ought to be a viable candidate but he isn't. The rest of the circus running for the Republican ticket a drop more viable than Paul. With the exception of Romney, except, keep in mind, just like a couple of the gents running, Romney is a moderate, and leans left on certain issues--I am talking about historical Romney, not running for the Republican ticket Romney!
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Tess View Post
    Ron Paul is ANTI-choice. He has filed the Sanctity of Life act a half dozen or so times, which would put the government into womens' lives. And he's been lying when he says he won't regulate where the government doesn't belong. Plus, he's never been able to get significant co-sponsors for his House bills, which means he can't get people to support his priorities - what makes us think he can do so in the Executive branch?
    He isn't anti-choice just because he disagrees with abortion, he would be pro-life. When has it ever been OK to kill someone? How about a defenseless baby? Never, it should never be OK to kill someone/something that doesn't deserved to be killed.

    The governments only job, in my opinion, should be to enact/enforce laws of crimes with a victim. Everything else they should stay out of. I know that they would have to tax to be able to do that, and I am fine with that too.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    OP, (and I mean this in the sweetest possible way, but) do your own research on the candidates.

    Or do you ask people what clothes you should wear? What rights you can exercise? When you can leave your house?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    He isn't anti-choice just because he disagrees with abortion, he would be pro-life. When has it ever been OK to kill someone? How about a defenseless baby? Never, it should never be OK to kill someone/something that doesn't deserved to be killed.

    The governments only job, in my opinion, should be to enact/enforce laws of crimes with a victim. Everything else they should stay out of. I know that they would have to tax to be able to do that, and I am fine with that too.
    So you are pro-choice then?

    Unless you mean to argue that a female who is impregnated by her father raping her, or by some random serial rapist, that the woman is not a victim.

    I think what you are actually stating is that Government should stay out of things that you think the Government should stay out of. And in the instance of a female having the option to have an abortion, well, the Government should not allow females to have an abortion.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-26-2012 at 03:06 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    @Firedog314
    Ya know what its like in a nonunion place (or at least every place I've worked at) vs what I hear you and everyone else say about a union shop? The nonunion shop is like an extended family, its not an us vs them when it comes to management and workers, everyone is working to the same goal, a well working company that makes money. I don't see how a union shop could be anything but a hate filled place, a union is a structure that sets workers against the management, that is internal fighting that should not be. I'd hate to work in such an environment.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    So you are pro-choice then?

    Unless you mean to argue that a female who is impregnated by her father raping her, or by some random serial rapist, that the woman is not a victim.

    I think what you are actually stating is that Government should stay out of things that you think the Government should stay out of. And in the instance of a female having the option to have an abortion, well, the Government should not allow females to have an abortion.
    So are you for murdering infants? A mother's rights only extend until it gets to the other person's right to live. The proper solution is for women to be armed to stop any rapist and take the proper drugs that will keep a pregnancy from happening in the first place, or perhaps day after drugs that simply cause the uterus to flush everything.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  22. #22
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    So you are pro-choice then?

    Unless you mean to argue that a female who is impregnated by her father raping her, or by some random serial rapist, that the woman is not a victim.

    I think what you are actually stating is that Government should stay out of things that you think the Government should stay out of. And in the instance of a female having the option to have an abortion, well, the Government should not allow females to have an abortion.
    EXACTLY!!! That is what I said, wait, no. The baby is the victim (dead baby in an abortion). Even if you want to call it by other, technical names it is still a living human being. I don't care what the government wants to make illegal, I just don't think they have the right to enforce it without a victim.

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Abortion is the 'law of the land', leave it alone. It is only a issue for the narrow minded and the myopic of vision. There are far more important issues that affect every person male/female, young/old....like our 2A right to self-defense.

    As far as the union thing goes, work in a union shop or not, your choice.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    So are you for murdering infants? A mother's rights only extend until it gets to the other person's right to live. The proper solution is for women to be armed to stop any rapist and take the proper drugs that will keep a pregnancy from happening in the first place, or perhaps day after drugs that simply cause the uterus to flush everything.
    I agree with what you're saying, just not how you're saying it. The proper solution is to enforce the laws against rape. But since that would leave a victim then women do need to carry (as with everyone else) to stop these acts from taking place.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    So are you for murdering infants? A mother's rights only extend until it gets to the other person's right to live. The proper solution is for women to be armed to stop any rapist and take the proper drugs that will keep a pregnancy from happening in the first place, or perhaps day after drugs that simply cause the uterus to flush everything.
    Life must be drawn at some point. Where do we stop? Do we charge that a man who spills his seed in a condom, or in the shower is committing murder? Is it the moment of conception (whenever that may be established)? So many questions, so few answers from Christians trying to force their own Tyranny on the body of a female.

    So, a mother only has Liberty, and Freedom until there is an others Liberty, and Freedom at stake? How contingent! So much for Fundamental Liberty, and Freedom.

    There is no fast solution. Morning after pills are a viable option, that is, if the mother is able to access them. Apparently there are many Christians who are opposed to the morning after pill option as well as abortion.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •