I've actually been pondering doing this so I can vote in the Republican presidential primary, especially since there likely won't be a Democratic primary I care about in 2012.

I haven't gone looking at election law though. As I recall Ohio passed some laws to make it harder for people to do crossover primary voting.

IMO, we should replace the primary/general election process with instant run-off voting.

I also think we should ditch the electoral college, and go straight to popular vote, so politicians will have to worry about their popularity in all 50 states, not just the big swing states like Ohio and Florida.

yes, i will vote against rick perry twice. In my estimation, he'll run against Obama. If Rick Perry can get Wall St. Funding, he will of course win.

I'm registered Republican in California. It makes me feel dirty. But I only did it to vote in their primaries. I've thought about switching to independent, then when the GOP debates start up with jackasses like Romney or Bachmann, I realize I made the right decision.

Why I should be a republican:


Republicans are rich.
I want to be rich.
QED.

If Bachmann makes president, she must have a vice president with the last name Turner, so we can get Bachman Turner Overdrive. I wish this.

Idaho currently has open primaries (they're trying to change that now). I voted in the R's primary in 2010. I did this to vote against the insane candidate--so I had to vote for the totally corrupt candidate.

I'm registered as an Independent. You've given me something to think about.

Texas has open primaries. I've decided if I might actually get off my ass and vote for Paul this year, even though I think voting is completely pointless and stupid. But... I might feel like a vote for Paul is a way for me to register my dissatisfaction with the corporately owned toads on the rest of the ballot. I haven't decided.

i'm also making up a ton of campaign signs that say "nobody for president 2012". everyone should do the same. i want to see these fuckers everywhere.

btw, don't let the hype about perry fool you, everyone in texas FUCKING HATES HIM. he's the worst governor in history, and he's only in power because he is entirely funded bt big oil and gas and the evangelicals who've silently taken over all of our local elections in the last decade or so. seriously, i have no idea how he actually pulled off winning the R gubernatorial primary, other than voting is totally rigged. i do not know one single person who approves of him. luckily, the governor of texas doesn't actually have a whole lot of power. id say the primary is totally between him and romney. and id also say romney actually stands a chance against obama (because EVERYONE HATES rick perry). but then again, id also say it doesnt really matter who wins because theyre just 2 public faces of the same corporately owned and minted coin. theyre going to talk about how wonderful the economy in texas is! its kind of bullshit. we might have more jobs readily available than most states, but they're minimum wage jobs and rent (not property values, rental values) is skyrocketing because everyone is moving here rapidly. soooo you can't afford to rent an apartment with your fancy new low wage job so you have to come live on my couch for a while. we also have a regressive taxation system and a subsequent $27 billion budget gap, which we're making old people and poor people and young people pay for. oh and we have worse air quality than all the other 49 states AND puerto rico... AND we have the most uninsured people... and possibly one of the fastest growing drop out and teenage pregnancy rates... oooh and we teach our kids a batshit evangelical version of history, math and science. we also refuse to teach our kids about sex. so when they go off to college they have no idea how condoms work and think if you have unprotected sex you need to drink bleach afterwards.

also, all of the above horrible things i've said about texas..... all happened under consecutive bush-perry leadership.

everyone in texas mourns the death of ann richards on a daily basis. we're thinking of digging her corpse up and making it run for office next election.

So there's the one type who says voting changes nothing.

Then there's the other type who complains about big money corrupting the system, who then corrupts the system by voting twice.

Both types should be ashamed.

Even the dead in Chicago only get one vote.

@NetRunner

Well, research fast...

@NetRunner @marinara @gwiz @peggedbea @Boise_Lib

Biggest question is---Will you send a message or vote for the lesser of two evils? I am voting for the guy who stands no chance, as you know. But that is precisely why... Voting for Romney, or Perry or whatever only sends the same signal---money wins every time. So I say fuck that...

But, but, even if you do vote for the lesser of two evils, it's still better than watching...

@blankfist

Right on.

@quantummushroom

Seriously, how do you propose this country fix itself? Vote the same cookie-cutters in?

And I can't believe a true blooded conservative (I think that's what you are) is crying that "all's fair in love and war" is unfair. We want two votes and are strong/smart enough to get em, we take em.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
@quantumushroom
Seriously, how do you propose this country fix itself? Vote the same cookie-cutters in?
And I can't believe a true blooded conservative neoconservative (I think that's what you are) is crying that "all's fair in love gay marriages and war withdrawal of troops" is unfair. We want two votes and are strong/smart enough to get em, we take em.


FTFY

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Biggest question is---Will you send a message or vote for the lesser of two evils? I am voting for the guy who stands no chance, as you know. But that is precisely why... Voting for Romney, or Perry or whatever only sends the same signal---money wins every time. So I say fuck that...
But, but, even if you do vote for the lesser of two evils, it's still better than watching...

Well, if you vote 3rd party, and no one really even fully acknowledges 3rd party candidates exist, are you really sending a message? If so, who's hearing it?

We should have some personal testimony from people who vehemently advocated voting 3rd party in 2008 -- was your message heard?

My stance is that if you're dissatisfied with the entirety of the political landscape, then you need to do more than just vote on election day. You need to make your case to anyone and everyone who'll listen, to try to get your ideas out into the conversation, and try to win converts.

Oh, and if your only idea is "both parties suck", that's not going to ever go anywhere. You need something for people to be for.

Not quite what I meant. 3rd parties are great, but the problem is that they don't threaten anyone. If they make it into the mainstream, they become the mainstream...

I voted for Ron Paul once before. It counted because people were surprised he got the relatively high number of votes he did get. Sadly, his message was distorted into the Tea Party, but it would have been great had it not...that message was good and just and did something powerful--it just was made very evil...lol, good deeds result in some of the most horrible results... That's why the Japanese culture rejects love to a certain degree (Because its opposite is hate...and so hate cannot exist without it...)

However, I did not write him in after he lost the republican because the votes were not tallied...

Remember the Write-In candidate that won recently? "Impossible!" everyone screamed! And they even tried suing to get it thrown out...either way, my point was/is, the write-in was impossible...

I am throwing all of my support to Ron Paul this time--and am even trying to convince people it is worth it to do the same. That's the message. Ron Paul is not the savior, not the means to an end. He is the change our culture needs... And I vote for that change...

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Biggest question is---Will you send a message or vote for the lesser of two evils? I am voting for the guy who stands no chance, as you know. But that is precisely why... Voting for Romney, or Perry or whatever only sends the same signal---money wins every time. So I say fuck that...
But, but, even if you do vote for the lesser of two evils, it's still better than watching...
Well, if you vote 3rd party, and no one really even fully acknowledges 3rd party candidates exist, are you really sending a message? If so, who's hearing it?
We should have some personal testimony from people who vehemently advocated voting 3rd party in 2008 -- was your message heard?
My stance is that if you're dissatisfied with the entirety of the political landscape, then you need to do more than just vote on election day. You need to make your case to anyone and everyone who'll listen, to try to get your ideas out into the conversation, and try to win converts.
Oh, and if your only idea is "both parties suck", that's not going to ever go anywhere. You need something for people to be for.

http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-Exposes-Mainstream-Media-Bias-Against-Ron-Paul

This is why you should vote for Paul...because money hates him I love him.

@NetRunner
@peggedbea
@marinara

And even, sigh, @quantumushroom (Remember, the liberals want the money too QM, so therefore if you vote a republican who wants the money, you are no better than those you hate...think on it...yes, that's a gotcha point, but it is still true...)

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Not quite what I meant. 3rd parties are great, but the problem is that they don't threaten anyone. If they make it into the mainstream, they become the mainstream...

But if they can "threaten" the mainstream, then they've made it into the mainstream.

The only thing that keeps 3rd parties outside the mainstream is their impotence. If you think their ideas are better than the mainstream, your goal should be to propel them into the mainstream.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Remember the Write-In candidate that won recently? "Impossible!" everyone screamed! And they even tried suing to get it thrown out...either way, my point was/is, the write-in was impossible...

I sorta hate to let you down this way, but you're talking about Lisa Murkowski. She wasn't some outsider who bucked the system, she was the incumbent Republican Senator of Alaska. She got defeated by a Tea Party challenger in the primary, but then ran as a write-in in the general and won.

That's not a story of the outsider defeating the mainstream, that's a matter of the mainstream defeating the outsider, even though it seemed like the outsider had already won.

It's sorta like saying we need more "Independents" like Joe Lieberman, you know the guy who was the Democratic VP nominee in 2000...

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I voted for Ron Paul once before. It counted because people were surprised he got the relatively high number of votes he did get. Sadly, his message was distorted into the Tea Party,

Right, but the transcription wasn't really that far off. Ron Paul and the Tea Party are totally on the same side on most issues except for the ones where Paul agrees with liberals (gay marriage, war).

Think about it, what other topic does Paul disagree with the Tea Party on? Anything?

Never said she was outsider, she was insider. What I said was, "Write-in's are impossible." My point was that the "fourth party," i.e., the write-in, can win.

Second, Ron Paul disagrees with the Tea Party on many more issues than you note, and many issues you would SUPPORT. Drugs and the lack of "war" on them, war itself, debt (Yes, he disagrees on debt. The Tea Party says we should destroy Medicade and medicare, and social security, Ron Paul says that is not possible 'right now' but he would privatize it to only those who wish it. See if the Tea Party agrees with him..."

Let'see, as you said, gay marriage...that's four huge issues right there...habeas corpus... another huge one that Bush disregarded; that the Tea Party would like to see fucked..sorry for the language... five...abortion...let the states handle it (I.e., legalize it for most states...) six...what else?

Besides these SIX HUGE ISSUES, I DON'T know...

Anyways, you got me on "threatening the mainstream" except that some few people don't become part of something...a party is not a person, it is an emotionless entity. But even so, if an "outsider" just happens to belong to a third party, then he is worth the vote.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Not quite what I meant. 3rd parties are great, but the problem is that they don't threaten anyone. If they make it into the mainstream, they become the mainstream...
But if they can "threaten" the mainstream, then they've made it into the mainstream.
The only thing that keeps 3rd parties outside the mainstream is their impotence. If you think their ideas are better than the mainstream, your goal should be to propel them into the mainstream.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Remember the Write-In candidate that won recently? "Impossible!" everyone screamed! And they even tried suing to get it thrown out...either way, my point was/is, the write-in was impossible...
I sorta hate to let you down this way, but you're talking about Lisa Murkowski. She wasn't some outsider who bucked the system, she was the incumbent Republican Senator of Alaska. She got defeated by a Tea Party challenger in the primary, but then ran as a write-in in the general and won.
That's not a story of the outsider defeating the mainstream, that's a matter of the mainstream defeating the outsider, even though it seemed like the outsider had already won.
It's sorta like saying we need more "Independents" like Joe Lieberman, you know the guy who was the Democratic VP nominee in 2000...
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I voted for Ron Paul once before. It counted because people were surprised he got the relatively high number of votes he did get. Sadly, his message was distorted into the Tea Party,
Right, but the transcription wasn't really that far off. Ron Paul and the Tea Party are totally on the same side on most issues except for the ones where Paul agrees with liberals (gay marriage, war).
Think about it, what other topic does Paul disagree with the Tea Party on? Anything?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Second, Ron Paul disagrees with the Tea Party on many more issues than you note, and many issues you would SUPPORT. Drugs and the lack of "war" on them, war itself, debt (Yes, he disagrees on debt. The Tea Party says we should destroy Medicade and medicare, and social security, Ron Paul says that is not possible 'right now' but he would privatize it to only those who wish it. See if the Tea Party agrees with him..."
Let'see, as you said, gay marriage...that's four huge issues right there...habeas corpus... another huge one that Bush disregarded; that the Tea Party would like to see fucked..sorry for the language... five...abortion...let the states handle it (I.e., legalize it for most states...) six...what else?
Besides these SIX HUGE ISSUES, I DON'T know...

Ahh, but here's where the rubber meets the road -- I don't really believe him about most of those.

Would Paul actually try to lead an effort to legalize gay marriage? An effort that would almost certainly divide the Republican party, or possibly even unite them against him?

I don't really believe Paul on Social Security and Medicare. Here's why.

I'm not sure what you mean by Paul "disagreeing" on debt. Paul was against raising the debt ceiling, and even sent out whip e-mail to ask people to call their congressman to tell them to vote against the deal that passed.

I don't believe him on abortion, and in any case "let the states handle it" is not my position, nor is it current law. It should be safe and legal everywhere, and supposedly that's how it is today.

I suppose I could see him relaxing enforcement of drug laws, so I'll grant you that. Thing is, I don't know how well he'd do in persuading congress to actually change the drug laws, or change popular opinion on legalizing serious narcotics like heroin.

Here's the thing though, my big three issues going into 2008 were the wars (and associated civil rights issues), health care, and the environment. Paul was with me on one, and radically against me on the other two.

If I had to pick my three core issues this time, I mostly want to see more stimulus, see the Bush tax cuts expire, and a passionate defense of union rights. Paul is vehemently opposed to all of those.

The long and the short of it is, there's nothing that I think Paul could deliver that would be worth all the damage he'd definitely inflict to countless things that I care about.

I'd rather vote for some random Green or Socialist candidate than vote for Paul. But moreover, I'd rather put what little weight I have behind Obama, because it's basically going to be him, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, or Mitt Romney who's gonna be President.

Now, if we had instant runoff voting, I could easily be persuaded to put a Green as my first choice...

@NetRunner (For brevity)

There is, in my mind, a bigger issue at hand than the tissue at hand (Sorry, Elmo in Grouchland ref...)
And that is the movement of society. Paul isn't, as I have note before, a means to an end. He is the first step in a million mile march. The only two things he can get done in office is 1--Change the direction of our nation's military might (Which is far more important than say Unions from a financial perspective.) 2--Stop federal enforcement of the drug war.


To say you don't trust him on certain things is odd. What would it take to earn your trust? And don't get me wrong, he won't start a movement to get certain things done (I.e., more tolerance for homosexuals)--he is the movement of the right to a center again (Where homosexuals are widely more accepted...) His best friend is politically a death-knell (Dennis Kucinich,) he has continued to hold onto his politically-doomed drug policies, he speaks freely, he doesn't take (much) money from the big guy...etc.

However, how well has Obama done to legalize gay marriage? (He can't, that's up to either the courts or the legislature.) Protecting the unions? (Can't, that's really a state level thing when it comes to practicality...I.e., if the state wants a loophole to doom a union, they can enact one.) One man isn't god in an office--and that's why I don't hate Obama for being a mortal man.

I just can't see myself voting for the never ending war between Big Business R and Big Business D... Voting for Obama or Bachman, or Clinton or Bush, is voting to continue that war and honestly I don't want a part of it. Once we realize this truism we can fix our nation.

See, our problem isn't a man in an oval office. It is the abuse of our people by our people. I don't mind helping the poor, but what happens when our policies are meant to create poor? What happens when the government wants people to stay down by creating an education that promotes stupidity? As it has... I personally don't mind "entitlements" because we pay for them through taxes--social security, unemployment insurance, medicare/medicade, etc. But when does that end? Until we answer this (And it is a critical question) we will slide as a nation.

And "entitlements" also include artificially low tax rates for the rich (And poor.)

I speak to people on the street @NetRunner and they disgust me. Where you might see polite indifference I see ungrateful stupidity. Cutting in my line? Not that big a deal...except that's the way of life for our people, not a one-time occurrence. How did the debate become so simple? Raise taxes, build unions and universal healthcare versus cut taxes, free-market, personal responsibility. Does everything break down to this high school level prom-running event?

Call it pessimism or fatalism (Which it is not since I am trying to affect change for the better) but we complain like Rome when it fell--not like we should, not in a healthy way...

Sorry for the rant, which this last section was.

I like Paul on domestic issues, though he's full of sh*t there too. He's already stated he wouldn't dismantle Social Security or Medicare.

Would never expect any liberal to vote for a guy who talks about dismantling the welfare state.

What seals Paul's fate is he sees no danger in a nuclear Iran.

Who wants money? I wouldn't spend one billion dollars to get a 400K-a-year job.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-Exposes-Mainstream
-Media-Bias-Against-Ron-Paul
This is why you should vote for Paul...because money hates him I love him.

And even, sigh, @quantumushroom (Remember, the liberals want the money too QM, so therefore if you vote a republican who wants the money, you are no better than those you hate...think on it...yes, that's a gotcha point, but it is still true...)

Reasonable views QM, but how can we afford to fight Iran? And if so, could we really take on a threat like China or some other place afterwards...? We are weak as is... Extended like England, Rome, Greece... This isn't a gotcha question--this is a question conservatives must answer.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I like Paul on domestic issues, though he's full of sh t there too. He's already stated he wouldn't dismantle Social Security or Medicare.
Would never expect any liberal to vote for a guy who talks about dismantling the welfare state.
What seals Paul's fate is he sees no danger in a nuclear Iran.
Who wants money? I wouldn't spend one billion dollars to get a 400K-a-year job.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
http://videosift.com/video/Jon-Stewart-Exposes-Mainstream
-Media-Bias-Against-Ron-Paul
This is why you should vote for Paul...because money hates him I love him.
And even, sigh, @quantumushroom (Remember, the liberals want the money too QM, so therefore if you vote a republican who wants the money, you are no better than those you hate...think on it...yes, that's a gotcha point, but it is still true...)

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

There is, in my mind, a bigger issue at hand than the tissue at hand (Sorry, Elmo in Grouchland ref...)
And that is the movement of society. Paul isn't, as I have note before, a means to an end. He is the first step in a million mile march.

Yes, and to me that march is a million miles in the wrong direction.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
The only two things he can get done in office is 1--Change the direction of our nation's military might (Which is far more important than say Unions from a financial perspective.) 2--Stop federal enforcement of the drug war.

He could also sabotage the EPA, HHS (and healthcare reform!), dismantle the SEC, FEC, FCC, Department of Education, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, while he goes indiscriminately axing through every alphabet soup agency on his way to the FRB, he'll stop off at the DEA, probably right after the ATF and FBI, mind, but that's not an enticement for me to support him.

But for me the big deal with the Presidency is the bully pulpit. The most common complaint us liberals have about Obama is that that guy who gave beautiful, moving speeches in favor of our philosophy just completely vanished when he got sworn in as President.

Paul's whole point in running is to get more time in front of a camera to give voice to what he believes in. I doubt he'd hesitate to use the bully pulpit to the fullest. And keep in mind, much of what he believes in is complete anathema to me.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
To say you don't trust him on certain things is odd. What would it take to earn your trust?

He'd have to stop lying! In 2008 I might have wanted him to become the Republican nominee, but 3 years of being subscribed to the Campaign for Liberty mailing list has completely disabused me of that.

I definitely don't want to help that man become President.

Oh, and not to tweak you off too much, but I agree with every word this guy said.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
How did the debate become so simple? Raise taxes, build unions and universal healthcare versus cut taxes, free-market, personal responsibility. Does everything break down to this high school level prom-running event?
Call it pessimism or fatalism (Which it is not since I am trying to affect change for the better) but we complain like Rome when it fell--not like we should, not in a healthy way...
Sorry for the rant, which this last section was.


That post was packed to the gills with ideas, so forgive me for only trying to really respond to this one.

From where I sit, left vs. right is really about complexity vs. simplicity. It winds up being a binary choice, mostly because the right is unified behind a ridiculously simplistic philosophy (erase the government and life will be awesome), while every other possible idea gets lumped together as being "left".

Want to talk about policy we can put in place to make markets more efficient? Left-wing social engineering. Want to try to systematically cure poverty? Socialist, or maybe Communist. Want to try to find a way to keep us from killing ourselves with pollution? Nazi, clearly. Want to end wars, well, unless it's because you don't think government should have the power, you're obviously some kind of dirty hippie.

That accounts for a lot of the differences between the left & right political movements. We're mostly unified by being anti-right, rather than some idea of what we want to do. We'd probably still have trouble getting bills passed through Congress even if every seat was held by a Democrat.

@NetRunner

Was that you that hacked the Paul money bomb event?

Not tweaked at all--at you that is... I find the atheist very endearing. Like when he tore apart feminists in his other vid... However, here he is just a hyperbolic dickhead. He sounds crazy, crazier than these kooky evolutionists by far.

Cancer is life. Steak in front of my mouth is life. No one gives a fuck about life when they use soap... Okay, so Paul and others forget to use the term "human" before "life;" but any educated gentleman can realize that it is highly implied.

In fact, his whole argument about the cells (fetus) being a human "one day," and being a parasite that should be decided by the caretaker is batshit. I agree cells are not human beings, so I agree with abortion-—but I also note that fully formed human bodies are not humans just because they grew to maturity or are popped out of a vagina. A comatose person with no chance for recovery should be allowed to die if their caretaker demands it…but then the angry atheist’s argument goes way further than that… I guess brain-dead shaken babies are fucked in his book too. After all, babies shaken by their parents, those who are unable to even move are just a bunch of useless cells that don't form a human by any intellectual concepts, motor skills, emotional thought-process, etc… He seems to be arguing that it's okay to bust a cap in their heads--but of course when you take away my hyperbole, he is not. (It was what he argued for by his own “superior logic” and didn’t realize he was arguing for it…)

I think he should, pardon the language again, stfu and use less hyperbole. If he does, I will.

Now, when the atheist basically calls me retarded, and generalizes me as being up Paul's ass, then I have problems with him. You know that's not the case Netrunner, but this guy does clearly state it and you stated that you agree with every word he says... (Oh, I even admit Ron Paul is wrong!? But that's as believable as creationism in this guy's book!)

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/07/12/ron-paul-wrong-on-abortion-its-a-human-right/

(And, unlike most conservatives, Paul is opposed to the death penalty and admits changing his mind after DNA testing freed many. So he does care more about “human” life than the angry hemorrhoidist claims.)

On a side note, I talked with my friend, an ultra lib if you will, about two subjects. 1-Most liberals think they are right because they are right so often that they won’t ever come to realizing they are wrong (Most conservatives just don’t care.) And 2—if your party is arguing about stupid bullshit with itself other while the other party leads this country to its demise, are not the “intellectuals” the dumber group because the should know better?

NetRunner said:
Oh, and not to tweak you off too much, but I agree with every word this guy said.

And basically the angry atheist is saying that my wife is absolutely ape-shit crazy for considering he miscarriage the loss of a child... I mean, it was just a few cells so what's her problem? Yeah--fuck him. Too damn smart when he has an easy target (Religion) but to god damned stupid to listen to what his own words mean.

(Sorry, I just thought of the miscarriage suddenly. That's why I insert it. Yeah, he can go fuck himself. And before anyone says, "Well, that's not what he is saying," unfortunately he did say it--just not outright.)

@Lawdeedaw he's a lot more rude and blunt than me, and I'm definitely a million times more delicate when talking about abortion, but the actual core of what he was trying to say, I agree with.

To strip away the rudeness and hyperbole, what he said about abortion is "life" is all over the place, and we don't mind killing bacteria, insects, or even large mammals without even batting an eye. We don't seem to have any concern about killing sperm or eggs, despite their "potential" to become people either. Why should it change instantly once they're combined? It's still just a potential person and not an actual person for at least some period of time after conception.

The other point he made about abortion is that there's more to the question to consider beyond what the foetus is, there's also the consideration of what "banning abortion" would mean -- the state forcing women to carry to term pregnancies against their will. Even if you decide that's morally necessary, there's a huge array of practical implications that follow from that that the pro-life side really just handwaves away as if they're not cogent.

And with the miscarriage thing, honestly, now you really are just making straw man attacks. He's not saying mothers can't be upset if they lose unborn children, he's saying it's none of anyone else's business if she decides she wants to lose it...

But mostly what I meant by "I agree with every word" was the overall argument about how this whole thing about Ron Paul is a cult. Ron Paul isn't some savior, he's just a guy. Worse, he's a politician. Worse still, he's a Texas Republican. There's some things he says liberals might like, but most of his ideology a screaming horror of bugfuck insanity that we definitely don't want to help him implement.

As for this:

[I]f your party is arguing about stupid bullshit with itself other while the other party leads this country to its demise, are not the “intellectuals” the dumber group because the should know better?

@NetRunner

You said,
"And with the miscarriage thing, honestly, now you really are just making straw man attacks. He's not saying mothers can't be upset if they lose unborn children, he's saying it's none of anyone else's business if she decides she wants to lose it..."

NO! I won't let you intellectualize what he said into something different. I won't let it be justified with words that don't apply. How can a bunch of cells, as he classifies the not-yet born, be a child??? That is saying that the unborn "child" is not a child at all! You add the term "child" but he distinctly says it's not a child. To him it is simply cells that have the ability to one day be a child. That's fine, but accept what that means.


And that brings up my point; either a woman is batshit crazy when she loses her cells (Like a woman crying every time she uses hand soap,) or it is a child she lost... And see Net, the problem is it now becomes an issue that you cannot defend, it is now a sexuality issue, an equality issue, and that's where you are not able to intellectualize.

You know why he won't say they're children? Because then he has to admit that the right have some sense in what they say. Instead, he now get's to have his cake and eat it too. "It's not a child except when the body itself aborts it...then women can be upset...even if I only called it a group of cells."

At least you have the balls to call it a child...

And speaking of cults--what about his own cult? If I called a woman a cunt, any woman, his supporters would be foaming at the mouth against me. But he waves his magical amazing-wand around and the supporters say its fine to use the word CUNT in certain occasions. But not for anyone else besides him...

(For the record, a lot of people didn't like his use of the word CUNT. Also for the record, his cultists didn't mind.)

You know it's funny--when I argue with highly intellectual individuals I always use "straw-man attacks" or am "wrong." In fact, as of today, I have never once noted something worthwhile that contrasted an intellectual's opinion. From now on when I hear the term straw-man I am just going to just assume there is no response and that the straw-man argument is itself a straw-man argument/attack.

@Lawdeedaw I mostly stopped by this thread to respond to the admonition to vote Republican/Ron Paul, so I'm really not terribly excited about how you're turning this into some sort of debate about abortion, and worse, are trying to conflate the pro-choice position on abortion with being callous about miscarriages.

A "straw man attack" is just the snooty way of saying "you're putting words in my mouth." Being pro choice myself, I can definitely say there's nothing about the belief that means you should be rude to people with miscarriages and call them morons if they get upset. Maybe amazing atheist is an asshole like that, but it's not something he said, and if he did believe that, it's something he believes, not everyone who's pro-choice.

The pro-choice position is that foetuses are at some point just a smear of cells and not people. We don't know when the transition occurs, but we know it's not instantly. We also think that the mother should get the final say on what's happening inside her body, not the government.

We aren't callous uncaring people. We don't want abortions to happen. We just think the best way to reduce them is to avoid the unwanted pregnancies that lead to them. On the question of abortion itself, we think we should leave the option of abortion safe and legal for the women who still do decide to go that route, because illegality won't stop them if they're determined to go through with it, and because it's not our right to intercede in such a personal matter.

As atheist's overall point concludes, we're the ones who're in favor of "liberty" here, not Ron Paul.

You know it's funny--when I argue with highly intellectual individuals I always use "straw-man attacks" or am "wrong." In fact, as of today, I have never once noted something worthwhile that contrasted an intellectual's opinion. From now on when I hear the term straw-man I am just going to just assume there is no response and that the straw-man argument is itself a straw-man argument/attack.,