Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind. 2018...

[Jeepfanatic]

Aren't these two highlighted parts contradictory? Looks like the government does in fact have some authority, since they define the age of consent.

Can a 12 year old take out a car loan?

 

[T.Lex]

"Legitimacy" of a political party is quantified by votes and habits.

Want more legitimacy for your party? Get more votes until people habitually vote for your party.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Can a 12 year old take out a car loan?

Technically yes I believe, however they cannot be bound contractually. My point was that you do allow the government to have a certain level of authority over peoples' sex lives. Really wasn't going any deeper than that.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

Technically yes I believe, however they cannot be bound contractually. My point was that you do allow the government to have a certain level of authority over peoples' sex lives. Really wasn't going any deeper than that.

I realize you were splitting hairs just for the sake of it which I responded in the manner that I did.

The age of consent can be defined by each individual state. There is no reason for the Federal Government to be involved in that either.

I don't care if you have 6 wives or want to have get married to a person of the same sex while both of you are wearing KISS costumes. It is of no concern of mine just like it should be of no concern to them what I choose to protect my family and property with.

 

[HoughMade]

Can a 12 year old take out a car loan?

So at what age does a person achieve the ability to be a free person and why?

...

The age of consent can be defined by each individual state. There is no reason for the Federal Government to be involved in that either....

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]A State is the state too.[/FONT]

 

[Cameramonkey]

What exactly, besides saying I voted for him, did voting for GJ do?

I think you missed the point of the meme. If everyone that said "my vote doesnt count" voted, together they WOULD matter when combined.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

So at what age does a person achieve the ability to be a free person and why?

Well obviously the traditional view is a person reaches adulthood at 18. That is when they attain the full rights as a citizen except alcohol consumption (which I don't agree with). As far as how it got there my assumption is that enough people viewed that as the age at which a person reaches full emotional maturity.

I just didn't want anyone shrieking that I am advocating for consensual sex between an adult man and a 4 year old girl.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

So at what age does a person achieve the ability to be a free person and why?



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]A State is the state too.[/FONT]

Correct but by keeping it within accordance of each individual state's age of consent it keeps it uniform.

 

[2A_Tom]

Well obviously the traditional view is a person reaches adulthood at 18. That is when they attain the full rights as a citizen except alcohol consumption (which I don't agree with). As far as how it got there my assumption is that enough people viewed that as the age at which a person reaches full emotional maturity.

I just didn't want anyone shrieking that I am advocating for consensual sex between an adult man and a 4 year old girl.

Actually a very large portion of tradition is that a maid wed after her first.

In the Old Testament a man reached majority at 30 after he had a trade and established residence.

 

[HoughMade]

Well obviously the traditional view is a person reaches adulthood at 18. That is when they attain the full rights as a citizen except alcohol consumption (which I don't agree with). As far as how it got there my assumption is that enough people viewed that as the age at which a person reaches full emotional maturity.

I just didn't want anyone shrieking that I am advocating for consensual sex between an adult man and a 4 year old girl.

I don't think anyone would have taken that from what you said.

My point- it's arbitrary. Some people attain "the age of reason" (however it is defined) at 13, some at 16, some at 32 and some never. Is it a permissible use of State power to set an arbitrary age of maturity?

 

[Expat]

At what age will we try a person for a serious crime. Surely they have attained the age of reason at that point.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

I don't think anyone would have taken that from what you said.

My point- it's arbitrary. Some people attain "the age of reason" (however it is defined) at 13, some at 16, some at 32 and some never. Is it a permissible use of State power to set an arbitrary age of maturity?

I would be open to listening to any well formed arguments on what the age of consent, as well as adulthood age as a whole, should be. Until then I will stick with the widely accepted 16-18 for age of consent.

Can we now get back to debating why a person should consider voting for Lucy Brenton over Mike Braun or Donnelly(not that I believe many people on here will be voting for Donnelly)?

 

[2A_Tom]

It won't do any good. If it is either Lucy or Mike, then the argument that maybe the Libertarian candidate is taking away votes from the Democrat is dispelled, at least in your mind.

That is where I am also.

 

[riverman67]

This SS issue is really a sticking point for me. Politicians like to refer to it as an entitlement these days, it is not. Working people and their employers have been paying an equivalent to 13 % of wages into this system since it was created.
I don't recall anyone asking my permission to confiscate that money and the expectation is that some of that is coming back to me and my spouse after we retire.
I began paying in at 12 or 13 and if I stop working at 65 I will not live long enough to put a dent in the amount that I have personally paid in.
So is the libertarian plan to cut me a check for every dime I've personally paid in plus 6%? What about the portion that my employers paid on my behalf? Do I get that as well?
If this is the plan I could likely get behind it ,I just don't see it happening.
Make no mistake I view this money as mine, if it wasn't confiscated from me I would have invested it and it would be worth far more than what I'll eventually draw in SS benefits.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

It won't do any good. If it is either Lucy or Mike, then the argument that maybe the Libertarian candidate is taking away votes from the Democrat is dispelled, at least in your mind.

That is where I am also.

Democrats say Libertarians steal votes from Democrat candidates. Republicans say Libertarians steal votes from Republican candidates. The truth of it is my vote is always my vote to give regardless of my registered political party.

In the grand scheme of things I haven't seen enough of a difference between Donnelly and Braun for it to matter which one of them is elected. Why not use this as the time to vote third party and try to make an impact?

 

[2A_Tom]

Well since you are Libertarian, abortion, child protection, churches and bathrooms probably do not matter to you, but Braun is also a 2a supporter and we know Donnely is not.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

This SS issue is really a sticking point for me. Politicians like to refer to it as an entitlement these days, it is not. Working people and their employers have been paying an equivalent to 13 % of wages into this system since it was created.
I don't recall anyone asking my permission to confiscate that money and the expectation is that some of that is coming back to me and my spouse after we retire.
I began paying in at 12 or 13 and if I stop working at 65 I will not live long enough to put a dent in the amount that I have personally paid in.
So is the libertarian plan to cut me a check for every dime I've personally paid in plus 6%? What about the portion that my employers paid on my behalf? Do I get that as well?
If this is the plan I could likely get behind it ,I just don't see it happening.
Make no mistake I view this money as mine, if it wasn't confiscated from me I would have invested it and it would be worth far more than what I'll eventually draw in SS benefits.

I haven't read an actual plan to dismantle Social Security other than it needs to be done. The actual act of it would be monumental at this point.

My personal belief is pay everyone what they have contributed plus 6-7% of compounded interest for the number of years they have paid in.

Isn't it funny how Social Security is such a great social program that participation isn't optional?

 

[riverman67]

I haven't read an actual plan to dismantle Social Security other than it needs to be done. The actual act of it would be monumental at this point.

My personal belief is pay everyone what they have contributed plus 6-7% of compounded interest for the number of years they have paid in.

Isn't it funny how Social Security is such a great social program that participation isn't optional?

It isn't and it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people have been paying into it for a long time.
Demonizing them for expecting some of their hard earned money back in retirement is counter productive to fixing the problem.
I agree its a problem, I'm not directing the demonizing comment toward you personally but whenever entitlement reform comes up SS always get lumped in.
It is not an entitlement the people drawing the benefits have paid for them many times over.

 

[Jeepfanatic]

It isn't and it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people have been paying into it for a long time.
Demonizing them for expecting some of their hard earned money back in retirement is counter productive to fixing the problem.
I agree its a problem, I'm not directing the demonizing comment toward you personally but whenever entitlement reform comes up SS always get lumped in.
It is not an entitlement the people drawing the benefits have paid for them many times over.

I never said nor did I imply that Social Security is an entitlement. It is after all your money that has been stolen from you for your entire working life.

 

[HoughMade]

...In the grand scheme of things I haven't seen enough of a difference in the things I care about between Donnelly and Braun for it to matter to me which one of them is elected. Why not use this as the time to vote third party and try to make an impact?

FIFY

Anyhoo, this comes to mind.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...n/244776-horning-steal-election-mourdock.html

When libertarians say that "there's no difference", well, it is patently false. There is a great deal of difference, just not on anything you care about. One significant difference was highlighted over the past week.

Many, many more people (apparently) do see the differences as significant.

...and I don't know what you guys think the definition of "entitlement" is. It means something you are entitled to or have a right to, so.....