"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation" -Ben Carson

[texasjack]

Islam is more of a political entity than a religion. Sharia law is in direct conflict with our US constitution, and that is a reason why the majority of American's agree with Ben

The Catholics have their laws and the Jews do too but I guess their courts are okay? So long as it doesn't trump US law i have no problem.

 

[OddBall1st]

There is nothing a President can do in the name of his or her Religion. A US born Muslim is fine. Muslims however have made winning that office, impossible.

 

[god1]

Man existed for tens of thousands of years with no official form of government..unless you want to consider group hierarchy an established, active form of government. If that's the case then all animals have an established form of government..

Explain to me how i can't live on a piece of land, grow/raise my own food and build my own shelter without govt. assistance.

If somebody much smarter than you, with better weapons and evil intent decides to take it from you.

 

[Rob Roy]

If somebody much smarter than you, with better weapons and evil intent decides to take it from you.

If you aren't "allowed" to do that and are automatically encompassed by the prevailing self proclaimed authority (coercion based government), hasn't what you fear ALREADY happened?

 

[WeedFreak78]

If somebody much smarter than you, with better weapons and evil intent decides to take it from you.

like government?

 

[OddBall1st]

If somebody much smarter than you, with better weapons and evil intent decides to take it from you.

You pick up your 2nd and exercise your 1st.........

 

[god1]

If you aren't "allowed" to do that and are automatically encompassed by the prevailing self proclaimed authority (coercion based government), hasn't what you fear ALREADY happened?

Rob, the elephant in the room is the requirement for conflict resolution. As much as our gov may suck at it, that's one of the most crucial services it provides.

There is lot to complain about with the current system, however, without some method of aberration, human interactions can quickly degrade into a free for all. I know you realize that.

Not all resolution will end equitably for all parties. There will be winners and losers.

I wish the world could be more like you envision, but humans being what they are it ain't happening.

There are too many irresponsible people that don't believe in self accountability.

Did you see the thread on theft? Would you really want some of those goofballs in your world?

There will always be the need for coercion, the question is who will have control. Do you really want a "free for all"?

 

[MrStickyScissors]

It doesn't matter. Let Will Ferell tis mother fucker.

 

[Rob Roy]

Rob, the elephant in the room is the requirement for conflict resolution. As much as our gov may suck at it, that's one of the most crucial services it provides.

There is lot to complain about with the current system, however, without some method of aberration, human interactions can quickly degrade into a free for all. I know you realize that.

Not all resolution will end equitably for all parties. There will be winners and losers.

I wish the world could be more like you envision, but humans being what they are it ain't happening.

There are too many irresponsible people that don't believe in self accountability.

Did you see the thread on theft? Would you really want some of those goofballs in your world?

There will always be the need for coercion, the question is who will have control. Do you really want a "free for all"?

No, I do not want coercion based systems. That does not mean I endorse a "free for all". I do however endorse freedom, for all.

The conflict resolution situation you bring up is a valid point. It can be addressed. How much reading have you done on that topic?

 

[MrStickyScissors]

If a muslim was voted in would we have to paint the white house black? and have MTV cribs do an episode?

 

[Rob Roy]

Rob, the elephant in the room is the requirement for conflict resolution. As much as our gov may suck at it, that's one of the most crucial services it provides.

There is lot to complain about with the current system, however, without some method of aberration, human interactions can quickly degrade into a free for all. I know you realize that.

Not all resolution will end equitably for all parties. There will be winners and losers.

I wish the world could be more like you envision, but humans being what they are it ain't happening.

There are too many irresponsible people that don't believe in self accountability.

Did you see the thread on theft? Would you really want some of those goofballs in your world?

There will always be the need for coercion, the question is who will have control. Do you really want a "free for all"?

I appreciate your sentiments and reasonable tone, but disagree that a coercion based system as a default for "conflict resolution" is necessary, in fact, it is what stifles mankind and is a kind of an oxymoron, since it has conflict within it from the get go.

 

[WeedFreak78]

Rob, the elephant in the room is the requirement for conflict resolution. As much as our gov may suck at it, that's one of the most crucial services it provides.

There is lot to complain about with the current system, however, without some method of aberration, human interactions can quickly degrade into a free for all. I know you realize that.

Not all resolution will end equitably for all parties. There will be winners and losers.

I wish the world could be more like you envision, but humans being what they are it ain't happening.

There are too many irresponsible people that don't believe in self accountability.

Did you see the thread on theft? Would you really want some of those goofballs in your world?

There will always be the need for coercion, the question is who will have control. Do you really want a "free for all"?

Federal gov was only supposed to intervene in conflict resolution between states or international dealings..not everyday citizen issues..those were supposed to default to sates rights. It amazes me how much our education system has ,either failed, or is willfully distorting what this country was supposed to be..city states with almost autonomous law, under a federal, limited, government, who only superseded state law, in very limited circumstances and scope, in state to state, or international disputes. We were never supposed to have one unifying federal law of the lands.

 

[Bugeye]

The political reality is that there will not be a Muslim U.S. president elected in the near future. Ben Carson's statement did not need to be made and belies his political inexperience. That same political inexperience seems to be working for him, Trump, and Fiorina at the moment. So it will be interesting to see if conservatives are still interested in political inexperience in a few months. Seems to be a double edged sword.

 

[OddBall1st]

It will be more interesting to see more than two candidates on the ballot. It`s been a while. As long as two parties get to choose who runs,....we are doomed,...Trump 101.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Dr. Carson made a valid point based on the very basic tenets of Islamic countries. They intermingle their religion with politics. There is no separation of church and state. Shariah law comes first to Muslims. And not unlike the Obama voters, they are lemmings.

His point is brilliant in that no one in their right mind would want a Prez who puts Shariah law over the laws of the Constitution, and with Muslims you can not separate the two. Muslim's are determined to force their religion down your throat even if they have to cut off your head first.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Another thought, no Muslim is running for office. NBC looked stupid for asking the question in the first place and the good doctor should have never taken the bait. It just isn't relevant to the current batch of nominees. Probably another one of those mass media "gotcha" questions.

 

[god1]

No, I do not want coercion based systems. That does not mean I endorse a "free for all". I do however endorse freedom, for all.

The conflict resolution situation you bring up is a valid point. It can be addressed. How much reading have you done on that topic?

Re reading, none; but I believe I understand the problem. We spend a lot of time, effort and money to detect and arbitrate truth. And the results suck. The issue can be broken down into two components, acquisition and post processing.

The first problem is in the data that's been collected. If the data collected is corrupt, no amount of post processing will give you the correct results.

The effort should be to get humans out of the process all together. (Talk about your fantasy world and then there's mine ...)

I just can't envision a realistic system without force of some kind. How do you modify behavior if an individual tells you to fuck off without coercion? Again, I tend to think you're ignoring human behavior. In fact you talk about defensive force, which is an application of individual coercion, (or not in your mind)?

How does your system not degenerate into free for all, or a might makes right type of situation?

 

[god1]

Federal gov was only supposed to intervene in conflict resolution between states or international dealings..not everyday citizen issues..those were supposed to default to sates rights. It amazes me how much our education system has ,either failed, or is willfully distorting what this country was supposed to be..city states with almost autonomous law, under a federal, limited, government, who only superseded state law, in very limited circumstances and scope, in state to state, or international disputes. We were never supposed to have one unifying federal law of the lands.

Okay, I think I get it. You're talking about the implementation of our specific government. I'm talking about a fundamental purpose or reason for the institution to begin with.

 

[Uncle Ben]

The first problem is in the data that's been collected. If the data collected is corrupt, no amount of post processing will give you the correct results.

Great point and speaks volumes about the mass media. Biggest problem I see with networks like ABC, MSNBC, CNN is with holding news or taking it out of context for a personal agenda. With holding information is the same thing as telling a lie.

With the exception of FOX, journalism is dead in this country. The days of Walter Cronkite are no more.

 

[woody333333]

Great point and speaks volumes about the mass media. Biggest problem I see with networks like ABC, MSNBC, CNN is with holding news or taking it out of context for a personal agenda. With holding information is the same thing as telling a lie.

With the exception of FOX, journalism is dead in this country. The days of Walter Cronkite are no more.

Withholding is one word