Need help picking to vote for

[georg jetson]

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....

A bit of satire?? I did miss that... appreciated.

 

[OC for ME]

NP....buzz phrases are many and hard to keep up with. My age is what dragged these oldies but goodies back up from the 90's....my bad.:lol:

 

[DrakeZ07]

We're all screwed anyway, Newt, Romney, or Obama, take your pick, cuz their all three the exact same peas in the pod.

I vote for stephen Colbert.

 

[Brass Magnet]

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

Yeah, haven't figured out why just yet.....:banghead:

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?

Try framing the question as when a being is considered a person. That's the real issue. Saying someone doesn't have rights, even certain rights, undermines the whole principle of natural rights. Every person has these rights just for existing, the question is does that person exist? After that question is answered the rights of that person must be weighed against the rights of another; for example, the mother.

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.

It's dangerous because it flies in the face of natural rights which are the foundation of our government. I'm not asking you to find reading on "children's rights of old", I'm asking you to read about and understand natural rights. The question then answers itself. Rights exist and are inherent in a person because that person exists. A just government secures rights and I brought up the following example in the other thread. Parents are to secure the rights of their children and only disable the rights that they can not exercise responsibly. Parents abusing the power egregiously, just as a government doing the same, should be punished. No, I'm not saying that government should pay special attention or invade the home and violate the rights of the parents without just cause. I'm saying that just as when any other person does something criminal to us, we have the right to take our grievance to the government and have them tried in the court of law. Even if there wasn't a government we'd have the right to compensation for our injury. The same goes for children. They have the same rights as any other existing person, they're only limited by their parents responsibility to make sure the children don't violate the rights of others. Might that mean punishment may be in order for a child that does something against his/her parents wishes? Sure! However; unjust, cruel and unusual punishment must be punished itself. Who decides what's just? A jury of our peers as it has for ages; as it would even if there were no government whatsoever.

 

[georg jetson]

Yeah, haven't figured out why just yet.....:banghead:

Thanks anywayz...

Try framing the question as when a being is considered a person. That's the real issue. Saying someone doesn't have rights, even certain rights, undermines the whole principle of natural rights. Every person has these rights just for existing, the question is does that person exist? After that question is answered the rights of that person must be weighed against the rights of another; for example, the mother.

That question is already answered... the age of majority, when one can exercise their rights like firearms ownership, entering into contracts etc. That is why we have no rights... until we reach an age where we can be expected to exercise said rights responsibly.

It's dangerous because it flies in the face of natural rights which are the foundation of our government. I'm not asking you to find reading on "children's rights of old", I'm asking you to read about and understand natural rights. The question then answers itself. Rights exist and are inherent in a person because that person exists. A just government secures rights and I brought up the following example in the other thread. Parents are to secure the rights of their children and only disable the rights that they can not exercise responsibly. Parents abusing the power egregiously, just as a government doing the same, should be punished. No, I'm not saying that government should pay special attention or invade the home and violate the rights of the parents without just cause. I'm saying that just as when any other person does something criminal to us, we have the right to take our grievance to the government and have them tried in the court of law. Even if there wasn't a government we'd have the right to compensation for our injury. The same goes for children. They have the same rights as any other existing person, they're only limited by their parents responsibility to make sure the children don't violate the rights of others. Might that mean punishment may be in order for a child that does something against his/her parents wishes? Sure! However; unjust, cruel and unusual punishment must be punished itself. Who decides what's just? A jury of our peers as it has for ages; as it would even if there were no government whatsoever.

How does one "punish" within the context of a free country without due process?

I gotta get outta town now and wont have much keyboard time till Monday. I definitely intend to do some more homework on this as I consider it the most important issue of liberty.

 

[OC for ME]

Can't cite them, but I think the courts have ruled on cases where kids do have rights. Mostly 1A and 4A, school stuff like t-shirts and searching their person. Maybe the 2A when not in a prohibited place. Like hunting or upon 'their' own land. Beyond that, most of the BoR won't kick in until they are 18, as gj correctly points out. I could be wrong though.

Wasn't there some kid who 'divorced' his parents back some number of years ago? He was like 15 or something. I don't keep up with pop culture, Someone throw me a bone on this one.

 

[Brass Magnet]

That question is already answered... the age of majority, when one can exercise their rights like firearms ownership, entering into contracts etc. That is why we have no rights... until we reach an age where we can be expected to exercise said rights responsibly.

Based on natural law you have the rights for existing. You are not magically granted them at a certain age. You are born and die with them. Without this fundamental understanding, any number of contrivances can be used to disparage and deny one of their rights. I really got into the philosophy of this in one of the other threads. Maybe it was in the RP thread.

Can't cite them, but I think the courts have ruled on cases where kids do have rights. Mostly 1A and 4A, school stuff like t-shirts and searching their person. Maybe the 2A when not in a prohibited place. Like hunting or upon 'their' own land. Beyond that, most of the BoR won't kick in until they are 18, as gj correctly points out. I could be wrong though.

Wasn't there some kid who 'divorced' his parents back some number of years ago? He was like 15 or something. I don't keep up with pop culture, Someone throw me a bone on this one.

Yes, what you are thinking of is an emancipated minor:

Emancipation of minors is a legal mechanism by which a minor is freed from control by his or her parents or guardians, and the parents or guardians are freed from any and all responsibility toward the child. Until an emancipation is granted by a court, a minor is still subject to the rules of their parents or guardians.

GJ, see what I underlined. Do you see how these things work together? The parents have control over their children only so far as they need to keep them from violating the rights of others. The parents are responsible for the actions of their children and therefore exercise prior restraint over them. However; a child is born with all the rights he/she will ever have and we even have a legal process with which they can exercise their rights earlier. The child always has a right to life, only liberty is limited, and only so much as they don't hurt themselves or others.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

I think Ron Paul is the best choice out of the given candidates. The reason is that he is the only candidate I think will actually try to scale back the government.

I find it amazing how little concern there is in Washington about the prospect of the United States being unable to pay off it's debts when the interest on the debt begins to exceed the GDP.

(bigger post removed... if quoted, I'll replace it.)

 

[ncwabbit]

reminds me of the man who provoked a fight in a bar and then steps away

interesting conversations one and all but i find it even more interesting firedawg, original OP, has only contributed 3 posts to this thread of 69 posts...

wabbit

 

[Grizz272]

Two things to look at when selecting a candidate to vote for.
1. What is the candidate saying
2. Does the candidates past voting history match what he says.
If not then the candidate is blowing smoke and cannot be trusted.