Need help picking to vote for

[09jisaac]

It would not be battery if I saw you attempt to touch my car and then I slap your hand with enough force to make you reconsider your actions?

I highly doubt that would be a prosecutable form of battery.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Again with this children have no rights crap? Believing this only shows a lack of understanding of natural rights. If GJ is going to go off on this again, I'm done with this thread.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

If your kid is going to touch something dangerous then you are a poor parent, should be prosecuted, for not make your home safer. The child has a right to a safe environment....don't make me get the village to raise your kid because you can't or won't raise your kid in a safe environment.

This would never happen in a union household.

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,

It takes a villiage Idiot to tell me when to slap my kids on the but, to make them see the error of their ways.
My union represenantive will know when to call the thugs, to make me know, when to apply the swats.
If the union fails, the government will be ready to step in, in time, to make the union, make me apply the right swats.

The DSHS will be watching the whole time, they will come, when I EVER dont do it JUST right!!!

 

[Firedawg314]

Regardless of his personal views on unions, it WILL NOT be something he uses at the Federal level. He is committed to returning this power to the states. As is it, there are States that are very pro-union, and those that are not. There is no reason for the Federal Government to be involved, and you can bet Ron Paul will ensure it stays that way.

Your choice is clear.

Some parts of what you mention about "returning power to the states..." worries me. For one... I had a lot of "political" family members (dead now), but they would talk about how the states where "different"... basically at the lower government... the police where like "little kingdoms", where it was more "they are the law" instead of enforcing the laws. For instance, where my mother grew up in Mississippi, at a certain hour and certain places, if you where black, you got beat from the police to leave the area. I'm not saying it would go back to that... but I would picture the police are "given" a "blind eye" to bring about what they consider "order". Such as stopping OCing and the right to CC. Really, how many would continue to OC or CC if cops where on a "mission" to frame you etc to send a message? Hey, there are people who have been framed by bad cops and served years in prision for false crimes etc.

Maybe I'm going too far with my thoughts... but when it comes to polictial issues... You always have to "look down the road" and imagine... what could go wrong with this "law"? And what can we do NOW, to keep it from going "wrong".

 

[Daylen]

Some parts of what you mention about "returning power to the states..." worries me. For one... I had a lot of "political" family members (dead now), but they would talk about how the states where "different"... basically at the lower government... the police where like "little kingdoms", where it was more "they are the law" instead of enforcing the laws. For instance, where my mother grew up in Mississippi, at a certain hour and certain places, if you where black, you got beat from the police to leave the area. I'm not saying it would go back to that... but I would picture the police are "given" a "blind eye" to bring about what they consider "order". Such as stopping OCing and the right to CC. Really, how many would continue to OC or CC if cops where on a "mission" to frame you etc to send a message? Hey, there are people who have been framed by bad cops and served years in prision for false crimes etc.

Maybe I'm going too far with my thoughts... but when it comes to polictial issues... You always have to "look down the road" and imagine... what could go wrong with this "law"? And what can we do NOW, to keep it from going "wrong".

That is a false conception of what local power would be. Locals were doing that even after much State power was usurped. County and city police don't report to the feds. The change would be wasteful spending in federal departments that are acting outside the scope of the constitution. Here are some examples: federal department of Education, fed dept of urban renewal(highly local matter cities don't usually cross county much less state lines), fed dept of energy, DEA, ATF. As a matter of history, we have done better with power being held at the state level, not local or federal.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Maybe I'm going too far with my thoughts... but when it comes to polictial issues... You always have to "look down the road" and imagine... what could go wrong with this "law"? And what can we do NOW, to keep it from going "wrong".

Apply this sentence to Federal powers, instead of State powers. It's a lot scarier.

 

[marshaul]

I highly doubt that would be a prosecutable form of battery.

Any form of physical contact is prosecutable battery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(tort)

 

[MAC702]

Some parts of what you mention about "returning power to the states..." worries me. For one... I had a lot of "political" family members (dead now), but they would talk about how the states where "different"... basically at the lower government... the police where like "little kingdoms", where it was more "they are the law" instead of enforcing the laws. For instance, where my mother grew up in Mississippi, at a certain hour and certain places, if you where black, you got beat from the police to leave the area. I'm not saying it would go back to that... but I would picture the police are "given" a "blind eye" to bring about what they consider "order". Such as stopping OCing and the right to CC. Really, how many would continue to OC or CC if cops where on a "mission" to frame you etc to send a message? Hey, there are people who have been framed by bad cops and served years in prision for false crimes etc.

Maybe I'm going too far with my thoughts... but when it comes to polictial issues... You always have to "look down the road" and imagine... what could go wrong with this "law"? And what can we do NOW, to keep it from going "wrong".

Keep in mind, the Federal Government does have the authority to enforce citizens' civil rights, as they should. In fact, when we strip them of the powers they are NOT supposed to have, they can do a much better job at the things they are supposed to be doing:

Civil rights, foreign affairs, and interstate commerce.

That's about it!

 

[OC for ME]

Don't get me started on 'interstate commerce'....

SCOTUS drops the ball almost every time on this issue.

 

[georg jetson]

Again with this children have no rights crap? Believing this only shows a lack of understanding of natural rights. If GJ is going to go off on this again, I'm done with this thread.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

Brass, I agree with about 99% of what you post. So we disagree on this one point... it's not that big a deal.

Believing that children have rights separable from their parents rights shows a fundamental lack of understanding for why we instituted this government. Here's something we're all familiar with...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — SNIP

People understood that a government was necessary to protect their rights form each other. In other words... you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Why in the world, thinking along the same lines, would I continue that thought to say... "Oh, I also need the government to intrude into my life just in case me or my wife are bad parents?"

In addition, hos one raises their children, discipline etc., is largely based upon religious beliefs. BY definition, the government is prohibited from interfering with this by the 1st amendment.

I don't intend to offend anyone with this viewpoint, but it's a valid view point and something that I believe.

 

[MAC702]

Don't get me started on 'interstate commerce'....

SCOTUS drops the ball almost every time on this issue.

Yeah, I wondered how much I should qualify that statement. But the intent of my post should make it clear that I am referring to ACTUAL interstate commerce, not all the BS that has been illegally lumped into "interstate commerce."

Point taken.

 

[georg jetson]

Any form of physical contact is prosecutable battery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(tort)

Thanks you... Yes that's correct. The same thing goes for theft. If my child possess something that I deem dangerous and I remove that something from them the I have committed theft and my state defines theft as...

A. Theft is the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another, either without the consent of the other to the misappropriation or taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations. An intent to deprive the other permanently of whatever may be the subject of the misappropriation or taking is essential.

So... the only way I can remove a possession from my own child legally is by due process if the theory of children's rights is correct.

In fact, the natural right that this violates is my right to be a parent and to exercise those rights to affect such.

 

[marshaul]

People understood that a government was necessary to protect their rights form each other. In other words... you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Why in the world, thinking along the same lines, would I continue that thought to say... "Oh, I also need the government to intrude into my life just in case me or my wife are bad parents?"

Why in the world, thinking along the same lines, would a person say, "Oh, I also need the government to intrude into my life just in case I decide to shoot someone in the face because I hate them for stealing my woman"?

Obviously, there is one or the other flawed premise in your reasoning. Firstly, a person might reason, "I do not like government prohibiting me from doing x, but I think the societal cost of others doing it is worse, therefore I accept the law for selfless reasons." Alternatively, a person might think, "I would never do x, so I don't care if the government prohibits others doing it, because it is obviously bad," where x is, say, killing someone you intensely dislike, or abusing one's children.

While these attitudes are an allowing factor for insidious creeping statism, they are also the basis for even the tiniest minarchies. One does not implement government to intrude into his own life.

The point of this is merely to point out that you cannot prove your case by making such appeals to hypothetical thought processes of revolutionary-era Americans.

 

[georg jetson]

If your kid is going to touch something dangerous then you are a poor parent, should be prosecuted, for not make your home safer. The child has a right to a safe environment....don't make me get the village to raise your kid because you can't or won't raise your kid in a safe environment.

This would never happen in a union household.

"The child has a right to a safe environment" ??? Where did that right come from. How does that fit into the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You'd see quite a challenge showing that people have a "right" to a safe environment.

As to your opinion that "If your kid is going to touch something dangerous then you are a poor parent, should be prosecuted, for not make your home safer." Well, how you raise your children is your business, just don't use the government to tell me how to raise mine. Just curious, what is YOUR definition of a safe home? Perhaps one with no firearm? If you leave it up to the government you can bet your a$$ that's what it will decide.

 

[beebobby]

I think that if the pro-choice folks used the term "induced labor" instead of abortion, the pro-fetus crowd would have to change their "baby killing" hyperbole. Santorum allowed his wife to induced labor at 22 weeks for their fetus, knowing that it wasn't going to survive, but he is pro-fetus. It's all about using words that will rile up your base.

 

[georg jetson]

Why in the world, thinking along the same lines, would a person say, "Oh, I also need the government to intrude into my life just in case I decide to shoot someone in the face because I hate them for stealing my woman"?

Obviously, there is one or the other flawed premise in your reasoning. Firstly, a person might reason, "I do not like government prohibiting me from doing x, but I think the societal cost of others doing it is worse, therefore I accept the law for selfless reasons." Alternatively, a person might think, "I would never do x, so I don't care if the government prohibits others doing it, because it is obviously bad," where x is, say, killing someone you intensely dislike, or abusing one's children.

That is a dangerous argument that you make. The same argument is made for those wanting a man/woman only marriage amendment.

Also, It stretches the intent of government FAR beyond it's original intention. The rights enumerated in the DofI are meant to delineate between men and due process as it existed was adopted as a protection. No such delineation can be drawn between parents and their children. It insults the reasonable intellect to attempt to apply due process between a parent and their child... at least while the parents are married. I'm not saying that civil process is incorrect during such times of divorce because the issue would be between the parents and not parent/child.

While these attitudes are an allowing factor for insidious creeping statism, they are also the basis for even the tiniest minarchies. One does not implement government to intrude into his own life.

True, but in the case of due process, there can be no practical application. Indeed, as a parent that's exactly what we are... the father/mother are king/queen. No voting, no "due process", no ifs ands or buts. Children do as they're told.

The point of this is merely to point out that you cannot prove your case by making such appeals to hypothetical thought processes of revolutionary-era Americans.

I think you are most probably correct that I cannot "PROVE" my point. However, I've had some time to do some research on this in the last few months. Additionally, I think if readers see the obvious "ridiculousness" of treating a child/parent relationship "in law" the same way a neighbor/neighbor relationship is treated, the fallacy of children's rights separable from parental rights may be realized.

One more thing... the way one raises their child is almost 100% based on a belief system... something which the government is prohibited from making laws.

 

[Brass Magnet]

^
Hogwash.
It isn't only an unprovable assertion, there is a total and complete lack of correlation.

Once again you bring religion into it. In the other thread; in which I don't remember anyone agreeing with you, we brought up the fact that some religions think it's ok to kill their children. So, you'd be ok with that? You'd be OK with a father killing his 16 year old daughter because she dishonored the family? You're effectively advocating family based theocracy.

You are the one making dangerous arguments here. The founders, Jefferson in particular; were heavily influenced by the theory of natural law. Saying that children have no rights totally abrogates that. Can't you see that? I think you need to go back further than the founding documents, back to the people that influenced the founders, and study up on natural law. I would hope that you would understand then that what you are proposing actually completely undermines the basis for a limited republican government.

 

[georg jetson]

Well... at least you're still here.

^
Hogwash.
It isn't only an unprovable assertion, there is a total and complete lack of correlation.

Once again you bring religion into it. In the other thread; in which I don't remember anyone agreeing with you, we brought up the fact that some religions think it's ok to kill their children. So, you'd be ok with that? You'd be OK with a father killing his 16 year old daughter because she dishonored the family? You're effectively advocating family based theocracy.

But much of the discussion here was already concerning religion AND when it is appropriate to kill a child, whether at conception etc... we allow the killing of children today based on religion. This hard truth MUST be dealt with. Even if it is agreed that a child has a right to life, which is actually my position, the government intervention MUST stop there. There are readers here that would(have) vehemently disagree that I was within my rights as parent to slap my child's hand to alter their behavior for their safety. What's to stop these individuals from forcing their "beliefs" onto me? What's to keep them out of my business?

You are the one making dangerous arguments here. The founders, Jefferson in particular; were heavily influenced by the theory of natural law. Saying that children have no rights totally abrogates that. Can't you see that? I think you need to go back further than the founding documents, back to the people that influenced the founders, and study up on natural law. I would hope that you would understand then that what you are proposing actually completely undermines the basis for a limited republican government.

I disagree of course that my agreement is dangerous and in light of due process issues, it is the ONLY one practice. Allowing a government to intervene a parent/child relationship cannot be controlled. As is evident in today's society, there is much talk of adding "obesity" to the growing list of "abuses" perpetrated by evil parents. It is simply a matter of time that things move to a government/child relationship relegating the parent to a permitted custodian.

However, I'll take you up on your offer. Show me some where I may find some arguments of children's rights of old.

 

[OC for ME]

I sprinkled a few clues in my post and some folks apparently missed them.

....a poor parent....
....should be prosecuted....
....safe environment....
....get the village to raise your kid....

....union household....

....alas....