--I'm not sure if this fits better in the Tavern or in the WEPR, so mods, move it as you see fit(of course you would do that regardless, but still-- As I'm sure AG's American members know, in 2012 the United States will be electing a new president or reelecting the incumbent. Normally this is done with electoral colleges, primaries, etc. on a national level. But I thought it would be kind of cool to hold a mock presidential election in AG, just to see what happens. The candidates will be the same, the only difference is that the voting will be on a much smaller scale. You guys will vote for which presidential candidate you like best, and at the end of two weeks(I may extend or shorten this deadline) we will see who the president of the United States should be, according to the members of AG. But before we start voting between Obama and the Republican candidate, first we have to vote for a Republican candidate in the primary. I'm gonna change the rules a bit on the primary: you don't have to be a Republican in order to vote on the Republican primary. That's because there is no Democratic primary, Obama is the undisputed presidential candidate for the Democrats. The Republican who gets the most votes on AG, regardless of who wins the actual primary, will be the one moving on to face off against the incumbent Obama. Rules 1. You can only vote once, unless you vote once in the primary and once in the main election. 2. In order for your vote to count, you must provide a reason for why you want that person to be president or to win the primary. 3. Let's try and keep this civil: no slandering, name-calling, or making fun of anyone because of their vote. We are currently voting on the Republican primary(so no voting for Obama yet, vote for which Republican you want to be the party's candidate). I will be tallying the votes at the end of week one to determine the Republican primary winner, then we will start voting on who should be the actual president. At the end of week two, I will tally the votes from that election and post who is the official President of the United States as decided by ArmorGames.
Personally, I'm against all abortions. I don't believe that anyone has the right to take someones life simply because they can't speak up for themselves.
My main motivation for voting for Paul was his economic stances: If we don't get the nation turned around fiscally, there wont be a nation, and nothing would matter then.
I'm against all abortions. I don't believe that anyone has the right to take someones life simply because they can't speak up for themselves.
So if a woman was knocked up against her own will, her freedom must be sacrificed? Why? Why should she be saddled with the child? It's not even her choice that she ended up in that state.
As it is, if I had to choose, I would go with Obama, even just on the abortion issue.
Nor do I like him shrinking government until it's almost a skeleton; to the point of taking away taxes, government intervention, etc. I'm not a supporter of the free market in general, I believe that it takes government intervention to correct market failure, namely 1) Merit/Demerit goods, 2) Public Goods 3) Monopolies. Take away the government's hand, and there will be disaster.
So if a woman was knocked up against her own will, her freedom must be sacrificed? Why? Why should she be saddled with the child? It's not even her choice that she ended up in that state.
Are there no Foster Homes? Are there no Orphanages? Are there no Adoption Agencies? What gives anyone the right to deny that childs potential, simply because it has no voice to argue with? Regardless of how much of an inconvience the pregnancy may be, no one has any right to terminate it. You wouldn't kill a five year old simply because its, say, hyperactivity is inconvient, would you?
Are there no Adoption Agencies? What gives anyone the right to deny that childs potential, simply because it has no voice to argue with? Regardless of how much of an inconvience the pregnancy may be, no one has any right to terminate it.
A fetus is as much a part of its mother's body. There might be foster homes to take care of the child, but you're missing the point of an emotional burden and scarring. Furthermore, the ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?
You wouldn't kill a five year old simply because its, say, hyperactivity is inconvient, would you?
Again, you're missing the point with a false analogy. A five year old is not a fetus, nor is hyperactivity ****.
I was unaware that a sentient being was actually apart of another's body.
It depends on what you define as when it gains sentinence. It shares some of the same blood supply of the mother, is connected to the mother and is still part of her.
Then should I give her reproductive choice by allowing her to kill an unborne child simply because its inconvient, and has no voice?
Most abortions occur in the first trimester. Has the baby developed brain waves then? I don't believe that life starts at conception.
And it isn't the issue of convenience or voice. The fact that it doesn't have a voice doesn't contribute one iota to whether it should be killed or not. It's an issue of emotions and whether the mother, a victim of **** can take it or not. If Paul loves his liberty so much, he clearly is flippant in somehow deciding that one person, if it even is a person, can somehow be more superior to another person's civil rights.
Since I can't stand either option I opt for a write in vote of the YoutTube personality Kate Fahr aka BionicDance. She would want to give equal rights to all, universal health-care, base political decisions on reason instead of religion and would give heavy funding to NASA to get off this rock.
Since I can't stand either option I opt for a write in vote of the YoutTube personality Kate Fahr aka BionicDance. She would want to give equal rights to all, universal health-care, base political decisions on reason instead of religion and would give heavy funding to NASA to get off this rock.
Sorry 20 Million Asthmatics, you're going to have to take one for the team. 20 Million inhalers < Fate of the United States of America.
Not going against you or anything Mav, but asthma isn't just inhalers. It can be seriously deadly if people don't have proper care. Every day, 11 people die of asthma in the United States alone.
Not going against you or anything Mav, but asthma isn't just inhalers. It can be seriously deadly if people don't have proper care. Every day, 11 people die of asthma in the United States alone.
Remind me to never, ever, use a hyperbole on this site again. Ever.
