electoral college

oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2806685
Now that I read it again, your previous comment makes no sense. You say you believe in the Constitution, but in the next breath you say that every amendment made in the last 150 years is a step backwards. Which means:
You believe it was wrong to abolish slavery, and grant the slaves the same rights as other American citizens
You think it was stupid to create the Income Tax and Electoral College (I'll give you these two)
You didn't want to repeal the 18th Amendment (Prohibition - hope you don't drink beer while watching football on Sundays)
Don't want women to vote (already stated that one)
Don't want Washington D.C. to have any electoral vote (another one I'll give you)
Don't want blacks to vote.
Don't care who succeeds the President if he/she is unable to hold office (If McCain gets in, I'll go for this one. We could bypass Sarah and go straight to Nancy!)
Think people under the age of 18 should vote (another one I'll give ya)
So all in all, I would tend to agree with you. However, I think the beer drinkers, women, an African American members of this forum may disagree with you a little.

To set the record straight I said "almost every... in the last 150 years".
The electoral college is in the body of the Constitution:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
“ Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. ”
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:
“ The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Then amended by the 12th amendment in 1804 More than 150 years ago. The 23rd amendment dealt with DC in 1961. It was one of the few I mentioned that was good. I actually think the electoral college is a good thing. It keeps the balance of power away from the populus states, and has the effect of making your vote count a bit more if you are from a low population state.
The thirteenth amendment abolished slavery in 1865 144 years ago. Close to my window.
The 16th Amenedmet in 1913 lead to our current regressive wealth redistributing federal income tax.
1913 gave us the 17th amendment and popularly elected Senators. This inturn gave us the current pork barrel spending, as these senators have to run for election.
As to succession, it is intially laid out in the body Art 2 sec 1
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Presidential Succession Act of 1947 further defined the lineage. The 25th Amendment cleared up the working i ht eCCOnsitution, but did not real "change" anything.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2806863
To set the record straight I said "almost every... in the last 150 years".
The electoral college is in the body of the Constitution:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
“ Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. ”
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:
“ The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Then amended by the 12th amendment in 1804 More than 150 years ago. The 23rd amendment dealt with DC in 1961. It was one of the few I mentioned that was good. I actually think the electoral college is a good thing. It keeps the balance of power away from the populus states, and has the effect of making your vote count a bit more if you are from a low population state.
The thirteenth amendment abolished slavery in 1865 144 years ago. Close to my window.
Close to your window? So that's OK with you? No wonder you don't want Obama as President.

The 16th Amenedmet in 1913 lead to our current regressive wealth redistributing federal income tax.
1913 gave us the 17th amendment and popularly elected Senators. This inturn gave us the current pork barrel spending, as these senators have to run for election.
As to succession, it is intially laid out in the body Art 2 sec 1
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Presidential Succession Act of 1947 further defined the lineage. The 25th Amendment cleared up the working i ht eCCOnsitution, but did not real "change" anything.

I missed the 22nd. Since you love Dubya so much, you probably don't like the term limits set on the Presidency.
Noticed you have no problem with not allowing women or blacks to vote, or abolishing prohibition. Guess you missed those three.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Actually, I'd like to see term limits on all elected positions to keep them honest, and decrease the abuses.
Oh, I guess I'm a racist for not wanting Obama because of his views and socialism.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by jennythebugg
http:///forum/post/2808734
oscar don't you know that everyone that is not voting for obama is a racist

Never said he was a racist. Just interesting he validates why all the Amendments in the last 150 years are useless EXCEPT abolishing Prohibition and allowing women and blacks to vote. He seems to keep avoiding commenting on those.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809196
Never said he was a racist. Just interesting he validates why all the Amendments in the last 150 years are useless EXCEPT abolishing Prohibition and allowing women and blacks to vote. He seems to keep avoiding commenting on those.
Maybe, because commenting on their validity is is not needed. Do you seriously think Oscar is against those amendments? I don't recall you stating Partial birth abortion is wrong. Does this mean you think it is ok?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2809253
Maybe, because commenting on their validity is is not needed. Do you seriously think Oscar is against those amendments? I don't recall you stating Partial birth abortion is wrong. Does this mean you think it is ok?
Doesn't bother me in the least. I've never been against abortion, no matter how it's done. The Pro Life abortion thing has been discussed here so many times, it's old news. You think life begins at conception anyways, and ANY abortion is wrong in your eyes. You don't like abortions? Don't allow any of your family members to have them. Just don't come preaching to me because I don't believe in your principles. State, Federal, it makes no difference. No one has the right to tell another human being what they can or can't do with their bodies. You don't own ANYONE'S body.
It's actually moot point anyways. How many other countries in this world practice abortion? Ban abortions in the US? So what. It'll just cost an extra $1,000 or so to fly to a country that does allow them and have it done there. Or do you want to make it some criminal act where a person can be prosecuted if they leave the country to have a medical procedure performed? What form of government is that? Communism? Naziism? It sure isn't Democratic.
So if someone really wants to have an abortion, it comes down to having the money to do it. So you'll have this population explosion of unwanted children because all the lower-income and welfare recipients can't afford to go somewhere else to get an abortion. Now cry to me why there's so many people sucking your taxes out your pockets because they live on welfare. Add a few hundred thousand kids to the mix. I don't want to pay for them. How about you adopt every unwanted child and you foot their bill? Of course not. It not YOUR responsibilty. That's what you call a hypocrit.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809264
. You think life begins at conception anyways, and ANY abortion is wrong in your eyes. You don't like abortions? Don't allow any of your family members to have them. Just don't come preaching to me because I don't believe in your principles. State, Federal, it makes no difference. No one has the right to tell another human being what they can or can't do with their bodies. You don't own ANYONE'S body.
So if someone really wants to have an abortion, it comes down to having the money to do it. So you'll have this population explosion of unwanted children because all the lower-income and welfare recipients can't afford to go somewhere else to get an abortion. Now cry to me why there's so many people sucking your taxes out your pockets because they live on welfare. Add a few hundred thousand kids to the mix. I don't want to pay for them. How about you adopt every unwanted child and you foot their bill? Of course not. It not YOUR responsibilty. That's what you call a hypocrit.
3 things...
1. how do you know my stance on all abortion? Nice Assumption on your part. Who plays the stereotype game?
2. What is cheaper, Condoms or an abortion? Aren't you one of those guys that supports --- education being taught at a really early age? So if you are, this idea of --- education must be working or will work in your eyes. If this is the case, there is no need for an abortion. As we will be teaching the population how to not get pregnant in the first place.
and number 3. You obviously missed my point I was making with that statement. I was not starting another useless abortion discussion....however it is nice to know you condone slicing a baby's head open and sucking out its brain with a turkey baster.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2809361
3 things...
1. how do you know my stance on all abortion? Nice Assumption on your part. Who plays the stereotype game?
2. What is cheaper, Condoms or an abortion? Aren't you one of those guys that supports --- education being taught at a really early age? So if you are, this idea of --- education must be working or will work in your eyes. If this is the case, there is no need for an abortion. As we will be teaching the population how to not get pregnant in the first place.
and number 3. You obviously missed my point I was making with that statement. I was not starting another useless abortion discussion....however it is nice to know you condone slicing a baby's head open and sucking out its brain with a turkey baster.
1. Because the way you made the statement, it's quite apparent what your stance is on abortion.
2. Condoms. Yes, I am an advocate on that type of education. Unfortunately, like the condom, it's not 100% effective.
3. It goes nice with favre beans and a nice Chianti..ffftffftfffft
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809399
1. Because the way you made the statement, it's quite apparent what your stance is on abortion.

Partial birth abortion, yes, all abortion, not so obvious. I no many pro-choice people against partial birth abortion. Nice assumption though. And the republican party is the only party that makes stereotypes?
Regarding condoms and birth control. You comment on it not being 100% effective. Thus why abortion is needed. Would not also agree then abstinance should be taught as an option in schools as it is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2809439
Partial birth abortion, yes, all abortion, not so obvious. I no many pro-choice people against partial birth abortion. Nice assumption though. And the republican party is the only party that makes stereotypes?
Regarding condoms and birth control. You comment on it not being 100% effective. Thus why abortion is needed. Would not also agree then abstinance should be taught as an option in schools as it is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy?
100% for abstinance classes. Again, when it comes to pre-teens and teens, raging hormones trumps any education or preventative measures. Even teaching abstinance doesn't guarantee 100% avoidance. It boils down to how the kid is raised. Shoot, I'm for allowing parents to put chastity belts on their daughters, and throw away the key until their 18. The problem is, in most low income family environments, the parents just don't care. Not to sterotype that group, but statistics show that's where the highest concentration of teen pregnancies comes from. I won't allow my daughters to even go on a date alone with a boy until they're 16. Even then, they have an 11 PM curfew, and they have to report in every hour. The parents I'm describing let their 12 year olds hang out with whoever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want to stay out. Half of these parents were knocked up at 16 themseleves. So unfortunately abortion becomes the ugly alternantive to having kids being forced to raise kids.
I don't advocate women having abortions out of convenience. However, for some women (and children), it's the only viable option in order for them to survive in this world. I may not agree with their principles, but I also don't think it's my place to tell them what they can or can't do with their physical body. Doing so would be playing the role of God. And as far as I know, no one has claimed to be that entity that I know of.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809470
100% for abstinance classes. Again, when it comes to pre-teens and teens, raging hormones trumps any education or preventative measures. Even teaching abstinance doesn't guarantee 100% avoidance. It boils down to how the kid is raised. Shoot, I'm for allowing parents to put chastity belts on their daughters, and throw away the key until their 18. The problem is, in most low income family environments, the parents just don't care. Not to sterotype that group, but statistics show that's where the highest concentration of teen pregnancies comes from. I won't allow my daughters to even go on a date alone with a boy until they're 16. Even then, they have an 11 PM curfew, and they have to report in every hour. The parents I'm describing let their 12 year olds hang out with whoever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want to stay out. Half of these parents were knocked up at 16 themseleves. So unfortunately abortion becomes the ugly alternantive to having kids being forced to raise kids.
I don't advocate women having abortions out of convenience. However, for some women (and children), it's the only viable option in order for them to survive in this world. I may not agree with their principles, but I also don't think it's my place to tell them what they can or can't do with their physical body. Doing so would be playing the role of God. And as far as I know, no one has claimed to be that entity that I know of.
I've heard your argument many times, it seems like a well thought out argument. But here is what I don't get, why is the child "their body"?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809470
However, for some women (and children), it's the only viable option in order for them to survive in this world.
Define survive in this world. I understand your stance s it is thought out in a manner that is intelligent. With the exception of this statement. If they had the child, would they die? Or would they just not able to excel in life as well as they might have.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2809485
I've heard your argument many times, it seems like a well thought out argument. But here is what I don't get, why is the child "their body"?
That's the biggest debate regarding abortion - defining whether the fetus at the time of the abortion is considered a human being that fully understands its surroundings, and knows it's a living, breathing organism. In first trimester abortions, the fetus is just developing its major organs. It has no cognitive reasoning, or any awareness of its state. So in medical or scientific terms, it's not what we define as a 'child'. It would be impossible for a fetus at this stage to survive out of the womb. As far as second and third trimester fetuses, even I can agree you are borderline as to whether the fetus is considered 'human'. For me, if the fetus could successfully survive outside of the womb at the time the abortion would be performed, then there should be no abortion. (yea, yea, somewhat contradicts my statement of 'how it's done'. However I did say HOW, not WHEN). The problem with Pro Lifers is they try to tie moral beliefs and principles into what should be a medical decision. Faith shouldn't define the legalities of abortion. People are adamant about keeping religioin out of our government, except when it comes to issues like abortion.
As far as 'survive in this world', my argument is based on economics. Yes, in most cases they would not die if they did not have an abortion (However, the ultra Pro Lifers even consider medical or life-threatening abortions wrong). But having a child while barely being able to take care of themselves physically or economically, could in fact lead them to a depressive state whereby they may end their lives. Extreme? Maybe. But for some people, that's all it takes to put them over the top. And for children who get pregnant, having a child while still being a child can have a devastating effect on their future.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809730
As far as 'survive in this world', my argument is based on economics. Yes, in most cases they would not die if they did not have an abortion (However, the ultra Pro Lifers even consider medical or life-threatening abortions wrong). But having a child while barely being able to take care of themselves physically or economically, could in fact lead them to a depressive state whereby they may end their lives. Extreme? Maybe. But for some people, that's all it takes to put them over the top. And for children who get pregnant, having a child while still being a child can have a devastating effect on their future.
Yeah, there are those that believe to the extreme. And that is their belief I guess, but doesn't fit myself. Children having children we can agree is wrong. But adults (full capacity to make decisions to have --- and understand consequences) are my main concern. As their choices are made with fully understanding how things work and by age 21 are able to make rational decisions. And so, I would say to them, you don't get a choice. You understand your situation and how choices impact your future, children not so much.
Would you be in support of an abortion age clause? How about a clause/law that limits the amount of abortions one may legally have when a medical condition resulting in potential death is not apparent./ Children having abortions I can understand. But as adults we should act like adults and I believe on many levels our societry is enabling people to act and remain children longer. Giving ways out so as to not suffer consequences when a personal decision was made.
 
salty blues

salty blues

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2809730
That's the biggest debate regarding abortion - defining whether the fetus at the time of the abortion is considered a human being that fully understands its surroundings, and knows it's a living, breathing organism. In first trimester abortions, the fetus is just developing its major organs. It has no cognitive reasoning, or any awareness of its state. So in medical or scientific terms, it's not what we define as a 'child'. It would be impossible for a fetus at this stage to survive out of the womb. As far as second and third trimester fetuses, even I can agree you are borderline as to whether the fetus is considered 'human'. For me, if the fetus could successfully survive outside of the womb at the time the abortion would be performed, then there should be no abortion. (yea, yea, somewhat contradicts my statement of 'how it's done'. However I did say HOW, not WHEN). The problem with Pro Lifers is they try to tie moral beliefs and principles into what should be a medical decision. Faith shouldn't define the legalities of abortion. People are adamant about keeping religioin out of our government, except when it comes to issues like abortion.
As far as 'survive in this world', my argument is based on economics. Yes, in most cases they would not die if they did not have an abortion (However, the ultra Pro Lifers even consider medical or life-threatening abortions wrong). But having a child while barely being able to take care of themselves physically or economically, could in fact lead them to a depressive state whereby they may end their lives. Extreme? Maybe. But for some people, that's all it takes to put them over the top. And for children who get pregnant, having a child while still being a child can have a devastating effect on their future.
If the fetus is not a human, what is it, a dog or cat or something? It would probably garner more consideration if it were.
A full term baby cannot survive on it's own, so that is a lame argument.
As far as "medical abortions" are concerned, would this include women who claim their "nerves" can't tolerate being pregnant?
As to the issue of a "life threatening" condition, it is more dangerous in some ways to have an abortion than it is to have a baby.
There are loving parents standing in lines to adopt babies. There is no need to kill them.
If I have offended anyone with my comments, so be it. It offends me terribly when innoccent human life is taken.
 
kingsmith

kingsmith

Member
[QUOTE=salty blues;
If I have offended anyone with my comments, so be it. It offends me terribly when innoccent human life is taken.
No Baby is innocent till baptism when they are washed clean of original sin, because God Loves Us?
 
salty blues

salty blues

Active Member
Originally Posted by KingSmith
http:///forum/post/2809789
No Baby is innocent till baptism when they are washed clean of original sin, because God Loves Us?
The biggest proponents of baptism of babies is the Catholic Church, and last time I checked they are also very much against abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top