(November 29, 2011 at 9:20 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:Quote:I've heard that charge before. I'll have to call B.S. on that.Thats logical. Youve never heard of it before. Therefore it is Bullshit.
That isn't what he said.
(November 29, 2011 at 9:25 pm)aleialoura Wrote: The point of the matter is that we unfortunately did have to vote on it. The fact that he said he wouldn't vote on it is essentially saying that he would have voted against civil rights.
That's not at all logical. Regardless of the fact that you don't vote for "rights", what the vote was for was the "civil rights act". There are numerous reasons why politicians vote against acts, and it doesn't mean they are voting against the reasons behind the act, just that they think the act is a bad idea. Ron Paul found this one unconstitutional, since it impeded on property rights.
That said, I'm against the civil rights act too, because I don't believe rights are things that can be voted on. So, does that make me a racist?
reverendjeremiah Wrote:Yet he's all for allowing the states to vote on the RIGHT of a womans womb to do with as she pleases or not.Is there really a right to that? Really? When there is an unborn child inside it? What about the rights of the unborn child? These are all questions that need answers before you can talk about those so-called "rights". When there are conflicting rights, whose get special treatment? Leaving it up to the states is a great idea lets people decide for themselves, rather than have such an issue decided by 9 people.
