New analogy, or, the only hope of the Republicans......

[Jamisjockey]

Ah, yes.  The bashing of the trickle down theory.


Did I mention I employ three people?  When Obama raises my taxes, one of them gets the Ax.  yeah, that's great for the economy.  Thank Obama if it happens.

[Pew pew pew]

I'm a Republican, and I don't think we should retreat from Iraq, nor do I think that gays deserve special status as a protected class for choices related to their sex life...they're not a race.

Well, these are things that the general American populace is starting to disagree with you on. Especially Iraq, and more and more so your foolish view of "special status" for gays. Torture is another losing point which McCain, admittedly, has a good stance on in my opinion.

Historically, Republicans (at least, historically) lowered taxes, supported 2A rights, and allowed for personal freedoms and personal entrepreneurship.

Lowered taxes and supported second amendment rights I'll give you. Personal freedoms? The Republican party? Are we talking about the current attempts to shield telecoms from prosecution if they take part in illegal wire tapping? Or back further, like how they fought against even allowing gays into the military at all? Or are you talking about the period of time before the Southern Democrats (the ones against the civil rights acts) integrated into the Republican party? Or do you want to go all the way back to 1918, when Republicans ran on an isolationist and pacifistic platform during WWI?

I do not like Democrats. At all. I do not want Republicans to move more towards the Democrats' flawed beliefs and policies that I consider abhorrent and repugnant to American ideals. In fact, at this point, a lot of them are what I consider outright traitors to the Constitution.

Well, then you're going to be marginalized. Social conservatism is not going to be a winning ticket much longer. Fiscal conservatism is great, but who associates Republicans with fiscal conservatism after the last 8 years?

The reason the Republican party is floundering is not because none of the candidates weren't "conservative enough". It's because of the war and social conservatism and their approach to foreign relations.

[Manedwolf]

I'm a Republican, and I don't think we should retreat from Iraq, nor do I think that gays deserve special status as a protected class for choices related to their sex life...they're not a race.

Well, these are things that the general American populace is starting to disagree with you on. Especially Iraq, and more and more so your foolish view of "special status" for gays. Torture is another losing point which McCain, admittedly, has a good stance on in my opinion.

Bull**it. Get out of your liberal fog and look at most of America. Most of America outside of colleges is proud of our troops and wants to leave Iraq after a victory, and things are getting better there despite the defeatist crying of your kind. Even your "secular messiah" Obama is against gay marriage, and he's as left as left comes. Also, note the liberal elitism, that the conservative view is "foolish". Get off it. It's not even amusing, it's annoying.

I do not like Democrats. At all. I do not want Republicans to move more towards the Democrats' flawed beliefs and policies that I consider abhorrent and repugnant to American ideals. In fact, at this point, a lot of them are what I consider outright traitors to the Constitution.

Well, then you're going to be marginalized. Social conservatism is not going to be a winning ticket much longer. Fiscal conservatism is great, but who associates Republicans with fiscal conservatism after the last 8 years?

Marginalized? By whom? You sound just like the liberals who whine that "we're going to take the guns away from the right".

With with does your sort intend to "marginalize"? Well, with the spreading asinine empty rhetoric fooling more and more already-stupid sheep a la Obama, perhaps, but that'll fade in time when the empty promises aren't kept.

So, what's your strategy, then?

[Pew pew pew]

Bull**it. Get out of your liberal fog and look at most of America. Most of America outside of colleges is proud of our troops and wants to leave Iraq after a victory, and things are getting better there despite the defeatist crying of your kind. Even your "secular messiah" Obama is against gay marriage, and he's as left as left comes. Also, note the liberal elitism, that the conservative view is "foolish". Get off it. It's not even amusing, it's annoying.

First off, I'm not in college. Second, I'm proud of our armed forces; I have friends who are in Iraq. I would prefer they not die in a region we didn't understand when we entered it for a war I do not think we should be fighting. Strangely enough, I garnered most of what you call my "liberal" views in the Air Force. Lastly, Obama is not my messiah by any means. (No, Paul sure as hell isn't either, if you're trying to peg me down in that camp.)

Liberal elitism? I think your opposition to gay marriage and (I have to assume) your support of "don't ask don't tell" is extremely foolish. It doesn't effect you. It does me and anyone else who happens to be gay. I also think that as long as you aren't allowed to discriminate against people based on religion or race, it's only along those same lines of thinking that you can't discriminate based on orientation. Seems simple enough to me and anyone who thinks otherwise I feel is foolish and ignorant. I mean, it does directly effect me and all. I guess that's pretty elitist.

With with does your sort intend to "marginalize"? Well, with the spreading asinine empty rhetoric fooling more and more already-stupid sheep a la Obama, perhaps, but that'll fade in time when the empty promises aren't kept.

See, this is what strikes me more as elitism. In your mind, anyone who votes for Obama is a stupid sheep. That's pretty elitist right there. You know what, now that I think of it, it's probably the visceral reaction to anything that is branded as "liberal" that is the biggest problem in the "conservative movement" right now.

[keeleon]

I am sure I will get flamed by someone for this, but it is an honest question.  Why are more people not Libertarian?  Aside from the "sheep" on either side who will vote no matter what their party tells them to, whenever I talk to someone that seems to "have it together", they can usually agree that less government and more freedom is good.  why don't more people hold those beliefs?  Is it because of the Liberterians other "fringe" ideas?  Why don't they change their stuff to be more in line with a greater number of people.  It infuriates me that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a non-r/non-D to win presidency simply because of too many people accepting those are the only options.  I wish there was a "free man's party" that really just makes people be responsible for themselves.  And it seems to me that the Liberterians are the closest to that out there.  It doesn't have to anarchy, it just meansstay out of other people's business if they don't want you there.  If gay people want to marry, fine.  If 16 year old girls want to have abortions, fine.  If people don't want to have health insurance, fine.

[Manedwolf]

Because the Libertarian movement was pretty much taken over by people who want fields of pot and who see black helicopters behind every tree.

Same people who destroyed Ron Paul by trying to help him.

[keeleon]

OK, that makes sense.  Is there a "non crazy" alternative that wants "change" in a FREE responsible direction?

[Pew pew pew]

OK, that makes sense.  Is there a "non crazy" alternative that wants "change" in a FREE responsible direction?

No. The only alternative is to not let politics ruin your life and take any political frustrations out on forum-goers... and drink. Everyone can agree over a drink at least on some level.

I don't trust anyone who doesn't drink, though... 

By the way, I'd like to take this time to point out that while I may heartily disagree with many people on APS politically, I'd probably gladly have a beer or glass of wine with anyone here. If you ever stop by Arizona I've got a place for you to stay, ammo, and a cold one in the fridge!

[seeker_two]

OK, that makes sense.  Is there a "non crazy" alternative that wants "change" in a FREE responsible direction?

No. The only alternative is to not let politics ruin your life and take any political frustrations out on forum-goers... and drink. Everyone can agree over a drink at least on some level.

I don't trust anyone who doesn't drink, though... 

By the way, I'd like to take this time to point out that while I may heartily disagree with many people on APS politically, I'd probably gladly have a beer or glass of wine with anyone here. If you ever stop by Arizona I've got a place for you to stay, ammo, and a cold one in the fridge!

  !!!!FREE BEER AND AMMO AT PEW'S PLACE!!!!  
(jumps aside from the thundering rush....)

[Perd Hapley]

It doesn't have to anarchy, it just meansstay out of other people's business if they don't want you there.  If gay people want to marry, fine.  If 16 year old girls want to have abortions, fine.

So, you're not really interested in freedom, then.  The fact that these things strike you, and many otherwise rational people, as obvious examples of freedom is a major reason why we can't come together on issues of freedom, to support a third party.  Until we realize that the widespread and legal murder of infants is the opposite of freedom, Americans will continue to flounder, politically. 

[keeleon]

I didn't really mean to get into an abortion debate, because I don't personally have much of an opinion on it, nor do I know much about it.  You are correct, murder is wrong and should be punished.  The real question here is whether abortion = murder.  The answer is "sometimes".

Until a "fetus" (note, you said infant, which is DRASTICALLY different) is capable of surviving outside of it's mother's womb, it is a parasite by all definitions of the word.  Personally, I disagree with abortion if I HAD to pick a side, but I don't think it should be flat out illegal.  there are instances where it might be necesary, case by case scenario as it were.  My wife just recently had an ectopic pregnancy, she might have been able to carry the baby full term, but the risk of BOTH of them dieing was so great that she had to have an "abortion".  I dare you to call her an infant killer, I dare you.

If it is decided that a fetus is viable after a certain amount of time, then if that women has an "abortion", then she is guilty of murder, and will face the consequences of such.  But I think we can all agree that sometimes "murder" is necesary.  I disagree with abortions as a means of birth control, and personally I think a woman who has more than one should be sterilized.  If you don't have a medical or some other REALLY good reason for it, then go ahead and do it but face the penalty.  I know you don't want to hear it, because it is just empty rhetoric, but I feel the lives of the children of women who have "convenience abortions" would be worse off then just being ended.  It certainly is better for society in some cases.

Does that sound more rational?

[Perd Hapley]

Does that sound more rational?

Much less actually.  Now you're saying, among other inanities, that a fetus is a parasite, and that murder is sometimes necessary.  Can you name other instances where murder would be necessary? 

I know you didn't want to get into an abortion debate, nor do I.  But that's the whole point.  Those who love freedom, and can agree about limited govt. and a dozen other things, are irreducibly divided on key issues, like abortion, the war on drugs, Iraq, etc. 

[keeleon]

Can you name other instances where murder would be necessary? 

Like in defending oneself?  Or in a war?  Or capital punishment?  Or perhaps just murdering cows so that you can have dinner?  Or murdering trees so you can have paper?  I will agree that is not black and white and that's what makes us such a wonderful species, our ability to look at things differently.  But you may look at one thing as "murder", where others don't see it that way.

So the question is, can I have mine and you have yours?  I suppoe the answer is no, because there is always someone that will come along and feel justified in killing 30 college students.  I guess he didn't look at it as murder so in a "free" country we should just let him.  I did not mean exactly how it sounded when I brought up abortions, because I will agree with you that that is a very delicate moral argument, "How far is too far?".  However that aside, there are MANY issues I think the gov should keep it's nose out of.  As long as you aren't hurting anyone else it shouldn't matter what you do.  And I suppose a 16 year old girl having an abortion can fall into the category of "hurting someone else". 

[Perd Hapley]

keeleon,

Murders are unlawful and/or immoral killings.  Hence, cases of self-defense, capital punishment, or warfare wouldn't usually be considered "murder." 

I don't see abortion as a "delicate moral argument."  I see it as a very clear issue, and base my position on simple and widely-known facts and legal principles upon which everyone agrees. 


What's with the "I dare you"?  What are the consequences of taking your dare? 

[seeker_two]

1. Murder only counts for humans. Killing animals without cause is just plain wasteful.

2. If abortion is OK because the life terminated is a "parasite", what else is OK to "abort": infants? invalids? the elderly? welfare recipients?

[keeleon]

Murders are unlawful and/or immoral killings.

And that's where the whole argument resides.  Whose opinion are we supposed to use on what is and isn't immoral?  Some people do think that killing in a war, or in self defense is immoral, and yet you disagree with them just as hardily as you take their position against me.  It is a delicate issue because people see things differently.  How far back do you want to go?  Is a woman a murderer for letting the egg not get impregnated, and "die"?  It has just as much biological justification for existing as a fetus.  At what exact point is it "murder".  Please don't bother answering, it's rhetorical, and not the topic of this thread, but I think you see my point.  And for the record, I very clearly see your points, and would agree them as I stated, I didn't represent my initial statement well.

As long as you aren't hurting anyone else it shouldn't matter what you do.  And I suppose a 16 year old girl having an abortion can fall into the category of "hurting someone else".

So is there an outrage over my statement about gay marriage though?  That is just as "immoral" to some people, and yet DOESN'T hurt anyone.  I'm assuming we can agree on that.

What's with the "I dare you"?  What are the consequences of taking your dare?

What do you think the consequences of telling a woman that has been trying to have a baby for 3 years, that because she chose to "murder" it instead of allowing her and it to die, that she is an immoral person?  She would probably cut your balls off.  Literally.

1. Murder only counts for humans. Killing animals without cause is just plain wasteful.

Maybe to you, but not to everyone.  If murder is the act of taking life from something, as we are discussing, then it very well can pertain to animals and plants depending on how "morally outraged" you are.  You say murder only pertains to humans, and some filthy hippy says it pertains to animals, but of course you are right, because you said so.  Right?

2. If abortion is OK because the life terminated is a "parasite", what else is OK to "abort": infants? invalids? the elderly? welfare recipients?

For the record, I am using the term "parasite" in it's scientific term, not it's figurative term.  If someone can't live without a machine keeping them alive, then perhaps it IS their time to go.  Although I don't have much of a problem terminating welfare recipients

[Perd Hapley]

Keeleon, I'm afraid you won't much like me after reading this.  But I'm trying to respond to your comments as helpfully as I can. 

Murders are unlawful and/or immoral killings.

And that's where the whole argument resides.

You're getting ahead of yourself.  I was only trying to explain to you a rather common word.  If you're not clear on the difference between murder and homicide, perhaps you shouldn't opine on abortion just yet. 

  Is a woman a murderer for letting the egg not get impregnated, and "die"?  It has just as much biological justification for existing as a fetus. 

Biological justification for existing?  Do you even know what that means?  Do you not understand the difference between an egg and a zygote?  That one is a part of an organism, and the other is a new organism?  I know you didn't want me to answer, but I protest that I was provoked.  Your confusion cried out for some light to be shed. 

I very clearly see your points

No, I'm sorry, I don't think you do.   

So is there an outrage over my statement about gay marriage though?  That is just as "immoral" to some people, and yet DOESN'T hurt anyone.  I'm assuming we can agree on that.

No and no.  I'm not outraged about any of your statements, and we cannot agree that "gay marriage" doesn't hurt anyone.  Of course, govt. failure to recognize homosexual unions doesn't hurt anyone, so I'm not sure why we need more govt. in that area.  You wanted more freedom, and smaller government, right? 

What's with the "I dare you"?  What are the consequences of taking your dare?

What do you think the consequences of telling a woman that has been trying to have a baby for 3 years, that because she chose to "murder" it instead of allowing her and it to die, that she is an immoral person?  She would probably cut your balls off.  Literally.

So, you're promising me castration, literally, if I say that your wife killed an infant?  Are you trying to goad me into saying it?  If your wife needs my address, she can get it from RileyMC. 

For the record, I am using the term "parasite" in it's scientific term.

No, you're using it in a rather ignorant and unthinking fashion, to satisfy a polemical need.  Offspring are not parasites.  Not in a scientific sense. 

[Ex-MA Hole]

 


Chill y'all.

[seeker_two]

1. Murder only counts for humans. Killing animals without cause is just plain wasteful.

Maybe to you, but not to everyone.  If murder is the act of taking life from something, as we are discussing, then it very well can pertain to animals and plants depending on how "morally outraged" you are.  You say murder only pertains to humans, and some filthy hippy says it pertains to animals, but of course you are right, because you said so.  Right?

2. If abortion is OK because the life terminated is a "parasite", what else is OK to "abort": infants? invalids? the elderly? welfare recipients?

For the record, I am using the term "parasite" in it's scientific term, not it's figurative term.  If someone can't live without a machine keeping them alive, then perhaps it IS their time to go.  Although I don't have much of a problem terminating welfare recipients

1. According to religious and criminal laws across the world, "murder" only applies to human beings. Not plants or animals. If you can find a legal ruling or religious doctrine stating otherwise, post it.
"Because I said so..." also works..... 

2.  If you want to get into terms, let's look at the definition of "parasite"....

1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. 
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. 
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc. 

So, who gets to live?......And, are you Greek?...... 

[MicroBalrog]

If McCain is the nominee, I'll have to vote for him because of potential Supreme Court justice nominations.

The man who has a record of opposing positive nominees, and in fact, fighting them tooth and nail?

[Manedwolf]

If McCain is the nominee, I'll have to vote for him because of potential Supreme Court justice nominations.

The man who has a record of opposing positive nominees, and in fact, fighting them tooth and nail?

Would you rather have the anti-self-defense liberals that Obama or Clinton would stuff the court with?

[MicroBalrog]

If McCain is the nominee, I'll have to vote for him because of potential Supreme Court justice nominations.

The man who has a record of opposing positive nominees, and in fact, fighting them tooth and nail?

Would you rather have the anti-self-defense liberals that Obama or Clinton would stuff the court with?

Remember McCain voted for Clinton's judicial nominees. The first Clinton's, I mean.

[Manedwolf]

If McCain is the nominee, I'll have to vote for him because of potential Supreme Court justice nominations.

The man who has a record of opposing positive nominees, and in fact, fighting them tooth and nail?

Would you rather have the anti-self-defense liberals that Obama or Clinton would stuff the court with?

Remember McCain voted for Clinton's judicial nominees. The first Clinton's, I mean.

So? Come fall, there will be either President McCain, or President Obama or President Clinton. Which would do the least damage? Seriously. Those are your only choices.

[MicroBalrog]

So? Come fall, there will be either President McCain, or President Obama or President Clinton. Which would do the least damage? Seriously. Those are your only choices.

Here is a question for you: Do you suggest we should suspend criticism of McCain entirely because 'the liberals are worse'?

Do you have any argument in favor of McCain outside 'Hillary is worse'?

[Manedwolf]

You need to wake up to reality. McCain is the Republican candidate. That is incontrovertible. Yes, it sucks, but all we can do is minimize the damage.

You can vote for him, or vote for Hilbama, which would destroy everything. There is no option C.