I am re-evaluating my political opinions

[Saul Good]

I have come to the conclusion that it's time for me to reconsider all of my political positions. Most of my opinions have been held for so long that they are more habit than anything, so now I am going to attempt to start from scratch and see where the endeavor takes me.

Obviously, the best way to form political opinions is by consulting bitter football fans on an internet message board, so let's do this. Somebody start me off. Pick an issue and tell me why I should be on your side.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No, that's not true. It's definitely just your morality. Even if you think Roe v Wade makes good legal sense, and very few people really do, you can't possibly believe that the people who drafted and ratified the constitution intended to protect abortion as a right. Likewise with gay marriage and even sodomy and contraception.

My first thought was, how do you know that? But then I considered that there were a lot of rights that women didn't have then. And some people in general didn't have a lot of rights that taken for granted today--such as that some people weren't even really considered people. So, you're probably correct that they didn't intend to protect abortion as a right, but their intentions as to specific issues like abortion isn't all that relevant.

[A Salt Weapon]

The founders did not want women to vote because they knew that women(much like liberals) act on emotion instead of logic, a society creating legislation through emotion is predetermined to fail, much as we are seeing happening to our country.

They also didn't want non-landowners to vote, as we see what happens when sheniqua and her 7 kids living in a tax payer funded apartment, eating tax payer funded food, and enjoying the benefits of tax payer funded healthcare is allowed to vote. Of course she is going to vote for the candidate promising more free stuff (gas money and car payments). Since she has no "skin in the game"(aka property) to lose due to the failures of elected politicians destroying the economy.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by FD

If possible you should drop your political opinions altogether and do your best not to follow any political ideology. You can still form opinions on various issues if you feel the evidence is very strong one way or another, so long as you've given consideration to both sides, but if you believe in an ideology which offers easy, pre-fab opinions based on some overarching "philosophy of government" you will be hopelessly biased when approaching something new. Ultimately this bias will infiltrate how you perceive every issue, including cultural and personal ones (see how nasty and personal presidential politics always gets.) Basically, politics destroys the mind.

This is admittedly an almost unreachable ideal, but if you want to avoid bias it has to be the conscious goal. A nice side effect is that, since nobody has time to study and consider every issue, you get to be comfortably neutral on most of the things people tie themselves up arguing about.

why would anyone want to go through life so aimlessly? This is like the recipe to end up like Kotter.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

The founders did not want women to vote because they knew that women(much like liberals) act on emotion instead of logic, a society creating legislation through emotion is predetermined to fail, much as we are seeing happening to our country.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I don't want them decided at the state level.

Then you piss on our Constitution and support tyranny. Because who will check the feds when they go too far? No one. And there will be no where else to go when that happens.

We had a frigging civil war over this issue of state vs. the big bad national government.

So what. There was still no need for a civil war and THAT was a consequence of president who violated the Constitution and governed like a tyrant.

States don't get to decide the big issues on their own. They don't get to dictate what freedoms to allow. That's decided by the SCOTUS and the big bad bogey government.

Those are not BIG issues. Those are supposed to be LOCAL issues because they reflect the values of the people. And the Federal Bill of Rights actually comes from the states. Furthermore, the congress has the power to remove whole categories of cases from the SC ever hearing.

You don't understand American history, the Constitution, why the Framers decided what they did (power) or what a "right" actually is. That's okay most Americans learn politically correct history in our govt schools. Ignorance can be handled with education.

[BucEyedPea]

BigRedChief,
Secession was a peaceful act by the South. You're not free if you can't secede from an oppressive govt. In fact, that's what the original Revolution was about—secession. It's as American as apple pie.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

My first thought was, how do you know that? But then I considered that there were a lot of rights that women didn't have then. And some people in general didn't have a lot of rights that taken for granted today--such as that some people weren't even really considered people. So, you're probably correct that they didn't intend to protect abortion as a right, but their intentions as to specific issues like abortion isn't all that relevant.

It is if you're trying to wrap yourself in the constitution like BRC. You're right that the original constitution didn't treat women like we do today. That's why it had to be *amended* to grant women the vote. I remain skeptical of that change.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

The founders did not want women to vote because they knew that women(much like liberals) act on emotion instead of logic, a society creating legislation through emotion is predetermined to fail, much as we are seeing happening to our country.

They also didn't want non-landowners to vote, as we see what happens when sheniqua and her 7 kids living in a tax payer funded apartment, eating tax payer funded food, and enjoying the benefits of tax payer funded healthcare is allowed to vote. Of course she is going to vote for the candidate promising more free stuff (gas money and car payments). Since she has no "skin in the game"(aka property) to lose due to the failures of elected politicians destroying the economy.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yeah that's some pretty sexist and ignorant bullshit. Women were regarded as property and felt that they didn't have the capacity to reason. In short they were better slaves.

Regarding why they didn't want non property owners to vote it was protecting their self interests combined with the belief that they just weren't smart enough to govern themselves.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

He actually got 33,341 votes - 29% of the vote.

http://cjonline.com/elections/2012/vg/jack-wu

Jack Wu, ran for a seat on the Kansas Board of Education

What specific issues are most important to you when it comes to education?

There is a severe lack of truth in the public education system in Kansas. Satanic notions like evolution need to be swept away along with the idiots that promote it. Sex eduction also needs to be swept away and children should be taught to abstain from fornication. Literature that promotes adultery, sodomy, fornication, abortion, and other gross sins against God should be cautioned against. Reading works of non-fiction should be emphasized above questionable fairy tales and fantasy novels.

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

My first thought was, how do you know that? But then I considered that there were a lot of rights that women didn't have then. And some people in general didn't have a lot of rights that taken for granted today--such as that some people weren't even really considered people. So, you're probably correct that they didn't intend to protect abortion as a right, but their intentions as to specific issues like abortion isn't all that relevant.

Who gives this zero positive rep? I turned he/she/it red since the day it got here and lately someone has been giving it green?
Who would do that and why?

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

He actually got 33,341 votes - 29% of the vote.

http://cjonline.com/elections/2012/vg/jack-wu

Jack Wu, ran for a seat on the Kansas Board of Education

First of all what a POS.

2nd I am shocked he only got 29% of the Vote. Most people vote Rep or Dem every single time no matter who the idiot on their team is. It shows at least a few people were paying attention.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It is if you're trying to wrap yourself in the constitution like BRC. You're right that the original constitution didn't treat women like we do today. That's why it had to be *amended* to grant women the vote. I remain skeptical of that change.

Unless they agree with you right pat?

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

He actually got 33,341 votes - 29% of the vote.

http://cjonline.com/elections/2012/vg/jack-wu

Jack Wu, ran for a seat on the Kansas Board of Education

LOLOLOL.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Unless they agree with you right pat?

I'd say it a different way, like "unless they use their vote sensibly", but you've got it basically right.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

He actually got 33,341 votes - 29% of the vote.

http://cjonline.com/elections/2012/vg/jack-wu

Jack Wu, ran for a seat on the Kansas Board of Education

The Republicans keep going down this path of irrelevancy. Let's see where this path has taken them so far.

Lost 5 out of the last 6 popular vote elections. the Democratic nominee has averaged 327 electoral votes while the Republican nominee has averaged just 210.

In this economy, Barack Obama has won more popular votes than any Democratic candidate for president in history—except Barack Obama in 2008.