Next best thing for the US (and perhaps the world)

[colourwheel]

Because planned parenthood shouldn't even exist in the first place. Where is it outlined in the constitution that woman will be guaranteed birth control?

 

 

Same arguement can be made here...

 

Where is it outlined in the constitution that woman shouldn't be guaranteed birth control?

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment

 

According to this, such policies should be up for state legislation, not federal.

 

How does that translate whether or not a woman is guaranteed birth control?

 

The point i was making was that the constitution has not mention in any from of actaul "birthcontrol" so the arguemnt of stating "Where is it outlined in the constitution that woman will be guaranteed birth control?" kinda can be made the other ways as to "Where is it outlined in the constitution that woman shouldn't be guaranteed birth control?" the Constitution itself was irrelevant in the arguement. where the state or the federal government takes control of the issue is another thing yet the point i was trying to show was republican beliefs want to make this a federal issue where womens bodies and rights are in the hands of a few "men" on capital hill.

 

The irony is that the republican party wishes to limit government yet control womens rights with government legisaltion.

 

people talk about the economy as the biggest issue yet anyone who is pressident would try to fix the economy. Even right now the economy is getting better as we speak under Obama. Romney wishes to completely dismantle all of Obamas progress and go to a way that put our country into the hole it already is in.

 

Why the heck would anyone even concider voting for Romney is beyond me but its their right to do so if they choose. I have already voted and I voted early. the thing that sickness me is when i went to vote someone asked me for my photo ID because I was asian. I asked them if i could vote if i had it or not and they told me it didnt matter. Yet just the fact someone asked me for my photo id because i am asain was insulting because i understand the republican party is trying to repress voters this year.

Edited October 27, 2012 by colourwheel

[Dan3345]

The constitution in itself was irrelevant to the argument? Really? Seeing as how ALL underlying law in this country is supposed to abide by the constitution, and to my knowledge we are discussing law the constitution is very much relevant.

 

At this point I am both confused and a bit irked. I am not sure where you are going with this or how to proceed. The constitution is the law of the land. The tenth amendment as pointed out by juderodney pretty much spells out how the federal government can and cannot proceed.

 

Yes I couldn't keep away no matter how hard I tried :P

 

On a side-note I am curious colour. Do you consider the constitution a living document or a static one?

 

Edit: As for voter ID. Everyone should have to show ID before voting. Everyone. Black, white, doesn't matter. For goodness sake.. You can't get into the democratic convention without showing ID, but they are so against people voting without one. More hypocrisy. I will say though I too find it disturbing that some Republicans would have government get out of their lives but have no problem allowing it to be sicked on those they disagree with. Democrats are guilty of this as well though. Just look at their intolerance for those who they claim are intolerant.

 

(I am referring too people who are against gay marriage.) Democrats claim they are intolerant. And maybe they are, I am not debating that. I will say I know people who are against it and they have no problem with homosexuality but they feel marriage can only be defined as between a man and a woman. Their house was vandalized because they publicly stated this opinion at a town meeting. BTW these are my neighbors.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Dan3345

[colourwheel]

The constitution in itself was irrelevant to the argument? Really? Seeing as how ALL underlying law in this country is supposed to abide by the constitution, and to my knowledge we are discussing law the constitution is very much relevant.

 

At this point I am both confused and a bit irked. I am not sure where you are going with this or how to proceed. The constitution is the law of the land. The tenth amendment as pointed out by juderodney pretty much spells out how the federal government can and cannot proceed.

 

Yes I couldn't keep away no matter how hard I tried :P

 

On a side-note I am curious colour. Do you consider the constitution a living document or a static one?

 

The point that the constitution doesn't really matter in this arguement is because it can be amended on either side of the issue. which is the point going back to "birth control" isnt mentioned at all in the constitution.

 

Yet historically Republican legislation represses women and womens rights through legislation.

 

if Romney is elected concidering the kind of people he endorces for political office "Roe vs Wade" would probably be over turned in court concidering this term a new supreme court justice is to be appionted. if this is over turned a lot of progress for womens rights will be set back decades.

Edited October 27, 2012 by colourwheel

[Dan3345]

I can't even tell what were talking about any more. Not sure if its because its late or its just gone off onto so many loose ends.

 

So to clear the air let me explain my own position here. I do not believe the government should serve any purpose other than common defense, and contract laws. Plus a few economic regulations.

 

I sit somewhere on the spectrum between a minarchist and a strict constitutionalist.

 

This is so awkward for me, because...Well..I agree with you.. Where I disagree is the role of government.

 

What is this the second time I have claimed to have been leaving and come back? Well I'm doing it again as now more then ever I see no point in continuing this debate.

[colourwheel]

I do not believe the government should serve any purpose other than common defense, and contract laws.

 

 

The huge problem with this belief is that there is no modern government that exist that strictly follows this exact belief and any government that would in this age would probably not last long considering how complicated the world evolves over time.

 

Edit: going back to voter ID I live in a dominate republican state. Most of the places to vote for early voting are controlled by the repulican party. out of the 6 people in line ahead of me I was the only person who was asked to show ID because I was asian and the other 6 people infront of me were white. I am sure they did the same for anyone black, latino, or otherwise anyone who wasn't white. This is why it made me sick.

 

there are hundreds of millions of people who do not have photo IDs in america who have the right to vote. in person voter fraud is so small to that it makes hardly any differnce in the electoral college. To repress hundreds of millions of people who do not have photo IDs just to vote is rediculous. Old people who do not drive and do not have a state photo ID wont beable to vote if they are required IDs and getting an ID takes time and money if you do not have the docummnet needed ( for example getting a birth certificate copy cost money if you need it from out of state.) Some students do not have photo IDs. If you could not vote unless you had a photo ID would disenfranchise too many americans. The only reason why the Republican party has tried to push legislation for this is because it would be in their favor. and when you look at the bigger picture a huge majority of voter fraud isnt even in person voting. A huge majority of voting fruad comes from absentee ballots which require no IDs to begin with.

 

According to the new law of my state it is required to show photo ID on election day. Ironic if you do not have an ID you can use a gun permit as ID yet if you have a student Id they wont accept it ( because majority of gun owners are republican) how pathetic is that?

 

This is one reason why voting early really matters to those who do not have IDs yet some states are trying to get rid of early voting completely now because the ID laws are not working for the republican favor.

Edited October 27, 2012 by colourwheel

[mizdarby]

As a non-american, I find the sheer concept of voter ID somewhat alarming to say the least. Anything that disenfranchises any eligible voter is most definitely not welcome, in any truely democratic society. And if it is indeed used, against any racial group (minority or otherwise), it should be discouraged and dropped.

Though I am very confident of a Democrat win, the UK MSN suggests the race is too close to call, perhaps they are seeing something I am not seeing.

Just as a point of personal interest, has anybody watched the 3rd Party debate, did my man Johnson win.

[colourwheel]

As a non-american, I find the sheer concept of voter ID somewhat alarming to say the least. Anything that disenfranchises any eligible voter is most definitely not welcome, in any truely democratic society. And if it is indeed used, against any racial group (minority or otherwise), it should be discouraged and dropped.

Though I am very confident of a Democrat win, the UK MSN suggests the race is too close to call, perhaps they are seeing something I am not seeing.

Just as a point of personal interest, has anybody watched the 3rd Party debate, did my man Johnson win.

 

I was reading an article on my phone the other day about what is going on in pennsylvania the republican party has been handing out flyers telling people when to vote. Saying in english to vote on Tuesday, November 6.

 

Then in spanish its telling the poeple to vote 2 days after the election is already over November 8....

[Tidus44]

And it just keeps getting better and better.

 

First, the Republicans tell us getting pregnant after being raped is a "gift from God" to the woman and then Powell (a Republican) places his support behind Obama and Sununu (One of Mittens main men running his campaign) says its because they (Powell and Obama) are the same race.

 

I fully expect Mittens to come out sometime in the next day or so in his white robe and hood and then explain that its JUST a Halloween costume and actually does not mean anything.

 

I think Rick Santorum said it best - "We (the Republican Party) will never have the elite, smart people on our side".

[Beriallord]

Oh and the auto companies? Ford didn't take a single bailout check, and they recovered fine and are doing far better than GM or Daimler-Chrysler.

 

Ford Motor Company never filed for bankruptcy.

 

but...

 

They did receive $5.9 billion in low-cost government loans in 2009 to overhaul its factories and bring out more fuel-efficient technology. doing this Ford managed to tiptoe past bankruptcy. So their "bailout check" was actually a loan from the government. No bank at that time would loan a company that much money. if Ford looked to the private sector instead they would have eventually filed bankruptcy.

 

 

Filing for bankruptcy isn't the end of the world. Its a process that a company can go through to turn itself around. If Ford filed for bankruptcy, these way overpaid union workers would have been forced to take some pay cuts or take a hike. Some UAW working on an assembly line make more than a lot of engineers in my area make. That that isn't counting the pensions and benefits. That is too much money for non-skilled to semi-skilled labor jobs. Toyota didn't get a bailout, and they hire plenty of American workers, all non-Union.

 

First, the Republicans tell us getting pregnant after being raped is a "gift from God" to the woman

 

Can you specify which Republican said that?

 

As a non-american, I find the sheer concept of voter ID somewhat alarming to say the least. Anything that disenfranchises any eligible voter is most definitely not welcome, in any truely democratic society. And if it is indeed used, against any racial group (minority or otherwise), it should be discouraged and dropped.

Though I am very confident of a Democrat win, the UK MSN suggests the race is too close to call, perhaps they are seeing something I am not seeing.

Just as a point of personal interest, has anybody watched the 3rd Party debate, did my man Johnson win.

 

Voter ID has to be in place, otherwise there is rampant voter fraud taking place. You can have 1 person with a bunch of fake names, going to various polling stations and voting. With voter ID, that makes it more difficult, because they would have to show an actual ID. You can register to get a voter ID card for free in my State. In which you have to provide a birth certificate and social security card to obtain. If not born here, you must prove you are a legal citizen. There is nothing unfair about it. It just keeps voting legit. Each State handles things differently, I always have to show an ID when I vote, and it doesn't bother me at all. You have to prove you are who you say you are when you apply for a job, or quite a few many other things, so what is wrong with showing ID when voting? Everybody has to do it in my State, no exceptions. I forgot my wallet with my ID in it last time I went to vote, and I had to go back to the house and grab it. Even though I personally knew the lady that was sitting in front of me, and she knew without a doubt I was the person I said I was, I had to show an ID anyway. So I don't see how anyone can say that is unfair or targets minorities.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Beriallord

[mellowtraumatic]

 

Can you specify which Republican said that?

 

 

I'm sure they're referring to Richard Mourdock, the Indiana state treasurer who is currently running for Senate.

 

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