Ron Paul climbs in the polls

thank you hoodie.

I had a girlfriend and we were faced with the decision to terminate an unplanned and absolutely unwanted pregnancy. she had her doubts and for awhile, she was angry because she felt I had coerced her into having an abortion, kind of like how my penis coerced her into getting pregnant. months later, she loses her job and I got sick and we became dependent upon our parents to supplement our disability and unemployment income, which CERTAINLY was not enough to support the birth of a child raised to my or her standards of living. eventually we grew apart, as young people tend to do, and we broke up and went our separate ways.

when your young and stupid, exponentially more terrible shit happens to you and the worst thing you could have on top of that is to deal with a baby.

if i had to do it all over again, I would absolutely destroy a baby.

I would destroy a thousand babies.

  On 12/29/2011 at 9:21 AM, chenGOD said:

candiru: please don't ever have kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aN9oplvaE&feature=related

gah i just watched leno to see ron paul on there. i hate leno

abortion is such a polarizing topic but on the list of importance right now it is so far down.

i propose making religion illegal completely

  On 12/29/2011 at 6:32 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/29/2011 at 5:16 PM, Hoodie said:

Arguing about potential life is so pointless. There is plenty of actual life around the world that is being robbed of having any chance to succeed and rise above crushing poverty and malnutrition. Nobody gives a rat's ass about that life though; it's much easier to put a magnifying glass up to the uterus every election cycle and debate the precious value of pre-birth humans.

 

Life is not precious. We throw away life every day on things like wars and general brutality and disrespect for our fellow man. So why is it so important that we protect the unborn when we so casually throw away life that has already been born? It's a funny conflict between so-called morality and the "every man for himself" attitude that gives the West a hard-on. Like George Carlin said, "Pre-birth, you're OK. Pre-school, you're fucked."

 

It doesn't make sense to me, but I accept that a lot of people feel like that. Sort of how people coldly accept mass casulties in wars or disasters but wince at animals dying. We have a compulsion to protect the defenseless. Our fellow man? Most people believe in the just world fallacy, i.e. you're an adult in control of your own destiny, so you get what you deserve. So dead human adults don't strike a chord with most people, but fetuses and cats do. Emotional garbage like that doesn't seem like a good basis for law.

 

I feel like Roe v Wade was really fairly ruled and that the debate should end at that. However, if we put this nonsense to rest, we'd have one less issue to irrationally divide the American people on and it's so tough to develop new ones (after all, we're still arguing over evolution).

  On 12/29/2011 at 5:27 PM, theSun said:

^^^^^^^

couldn't have said it better.

  On 12/29/2011 at 9:52 PM, Benedict Cumberbatch said:

i propose making religion illegal completely

Hell, America is far enough from simply eliminating it from public policy and law. That alone would be a major step. I can't think of any major US politicians who have openly declared themselves atheists, besides Pete Stark or Jesse Ventura, and actually won an election. I wonder how many "closeted" atheist and agnostic politicians are currently in office.

I'm hoping this country, if it's still in it's current state as a sovereign nation, will look back on these times with complete embarrassment and shame. The sooner the better.

  On 12/29/2011 at 9:12 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 12/29/2011 at 6:17 AM, lumpenprol said:

don't you think "they value the future life so much they choose to postpone bringing it into the world. " is a specious argument, though? You can't "postpone" that unique, specific life - you are killing it. And imagining for a second that that foetus had the capacity for rational talk and you could talk to it, how convincing would the following sound: "I'm sorry, we have to kill you now because in the future, there's a chance you might have to go hungry, or I might not be able to afford a Wii for you." Killing something to prevent its future suffering is a tough argument to make, since you can't predict the future (unless the kid has some genetic disorder). You could always give the kid up for adoption.

 

No more specious than "they are pro-choice so they must not value future life".

Since we're imagining talking to a fetus "Hey, we're gonna have you, even though we're dirt poor, uneducated and live in the middle of nowhere. the best life you'll ever have is fucking a sheep behind the trailer while we keep smoking meth. you'll probably grow up to hate us, kill us while we sleep and then serve 20 to life in prison."

this sounds more like an argument for forced sterilisation

Michael Savage's 15 minute long anti ron paul rant opening his December 28th show.

  On 12/29/2011 at 5:16 PM, Hoodie said:

Arguing about potential life is so pointless. There is plenty of actual life around the world that is being robbed of having any chance to succeed and rise above crushing poverty and malnutrition. Nobody gives a rat's ass about that life though; it's much easier to put a magnifying glass up to the uterus every election cycle and debate the precious value of pre-birth humans.

 

Life is not precious. We throw away life every day on things like wars and general brutality and disrespect for our fellow man. So why is it so important that we protect the unborn when we so casually throw away life that has already been born? It's a funny conflict between so-called morality and the "every man for himself" attitude that gives the West a hard-on. Like George Carlin said, "Pre-birth, you're OK. Pre-school, you're fucked."

 

It doesn't make sense to me, but I accept that a lot of people feel like that. Sort of how people coldly accept mass casulties in wars or disasters but wince at animals dying. We have a compulsion to protect the defenseless. Our fellow man? Most people believe in the just world fallacy, i.e. you're an adult in control of your own destiny, so you get what you deserve. So dead human adults don't strike a chord with most people, but fetuses and cats do. Emotional garbage like that doesn't seem like a good basis for law.

 

I feel like Roe v Wade was really fairly ruled and that the debate should end at that. However, if we put this nonsense to rest, we'd have one less issue to irrationally divide the American people on and it's so tough to develop new ones (after all, we're still arguing over evolution).

i completely agree with your first line about it being an unnecessarily attention-grabbing and divisive issue, when it shouldn't be. For me it's next to non-existent as an issue when compared to all the other things that are broke and need fixing. However your logic here is not solid, imo - justifying abortion by saying "lots of other bad shit happens in the world." I would hope people on watmm would be internally consistent, so that those who are starting to drift towards a more anti-abortion stance like myself, would also be anti-war (I am), anti-murder, etc...

Also I don't think it's fair to put the issue in the same category as "liking cats" (though I know what you mean, for some people it probably doesn't go much further than the "protect cute babby" factor). But protecting the weak and defenseless is precisely the foundation of a moral law. Most people instinctively know this, which is why pedophiles get murdered in prison. So, no matter what side of the debate you fall on, I think it's a really hard issue to be glib about (as you and candiru are kind of being). At the same time, it's also an issue that people shouldn't hate each other over, as given the sensitivity of the topic (especially for people who have had an abortion), imo it should be discussed in a contemplative not shrill tone...srs bizness

  On 12/30/2011 at 12:41 AM, Awepittance said:

Michael Savage's 15 minute long anti ron paul rant opening his December 28th show.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkwySCu25A8

fucking lol i love michael savage....hes by far the most batshit of the right wing radio nuts, and half the time he goes off on tangents about how much he hates the new italian carry out near his house...reminds me of my 90 year old grandfather.

  On 12/30/2011 at 1:25 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 12/29/2011 at 5:16 PM, Hoodie said:

Arguing about potential life is so pointless. There is plenty of actual life around the world that is being robbed of having any chance to succeed and rise above crushing poverty and malnutrition. Nobody gives a rat's ass about that life though; it's much easier to put a magnifying glass up to the uterus every election cycle and debate the precious value of pre-birth humans.

 

Life is not precious. We throw away life every day on things like wars and general brutality and disrespect for our fellow man. So why is it so important that we protect the unborn when we so casually throw away life that has already been born? It's a funny conflict between so-called morality and the "every man for himself" attitude that gives the West a hard-on. Like George Carlin said, "Pre-birth, you're OK. Pre-school, you're fucked."

 

It doesn't make sense to me, but I accept that a lot of people feel like that. Sort of how people coldly accept mass casulties in wars or disasters but wince at animals dying. We have a compulsion to protect the defenseless. Our fellow man? Most people believe in the just world fallacy, i.e. you're an adult in control of your own destiny, so you get what you deserve. So dead human adults don't strike a chord with most people, but fetuses and cats do. Emotional garbage like that doesn't seem like a good basis for law.

 

I feel like Roe v Wade was really fairly ruled and that the debate should end at that. However, if we put this nonsense to rest, we'd have one less issue to irrationally divide the American people on and it's so tough to develop new ones (after all, we're still arguing over evolution).

 

i completely agree with your first line about it being an unnecessarily attention-grabbing and divisive issue, when it shouldn't be. For me it's next to non-existent as an issue when compared to all the other things that are broke and need fixing. However your logic here is not solid, imo - justifying abortion by saying "lots of other bad shit happens in the world." I would hope people on watmm would be internally consistent, so that those who are starting to drift towards a more anti-abortion stance like myself, would also be anti-war (I am), anti-murder, etc...

 

Also I don't think it's fair to put the issue in the same category as "liking cats" (though I know what you mean, for some people it probably doesn't go much further than the "protect cute babby" factor). But protecting the weak and defenseless is precisely the foundation of a moral law. Most people instinctively know this, which is why pedophiles get murdered in prison. So, no matter what side of the debate you fall on, I think it's a really hard issue to be glib about (as you and candiru are kind of being). At the same time, it's also an issue that people shouldn't hate each other over, as given the sensitivity of the topic (especially for people who have had an abortion), imo it should be discussed in a contemplative not shrill tone...srs bizness

ugh im not gonna get into this.

I'm not a huge Ron Paul fan or a political person in general but Michael Savage sounds like quite the piece of poop.

  On 12/30/2011 at 7:51 PM, Awepittance said:

I don't get who they're trying to when over with this sort of stuff. I'm pretty sure most social conservatives already think Ron Paul is an Iwaqi. If anything these ads are gonna just get more left-leaning moderates & Libertarians on the Paul bandwagon.

  On 12/30/2011 at 8:06 PM, Benedict Cumberbatch said:

http://www.counterpu...ed-of-ron-paul/

Wow, lots of words based around the empty concept of "the establishment". Is if there is one "the establishment" (instead of, say many with varying and often opposing interests).

There are lots of good points though, but to start with "the establishment" just seems like a poor excuse to have some ghostlike abstract counterpart to win some imaginary discussion.

  On 12/30/2011 at 8:06 PM, Benedict Cumberbatch said:

http://www.counterpu...ed-of-ron-paul/

after reading this article ....damn! even i forgot that Israeli military murdered an American citizen not too long ago and not a single media outlet acted outraged about it

  Quote

Israel can even murder an American citizen, as it did in 2010 in the case of unarmed 19-year-old humanitarian volunteer Furkan Dogan on the Turkish Gaza aid ship, the Mavi Marmara, and there isn’t a peep of protest from Washington (the White House actually tried to bury a report from the Turkish national forensic medicine body declaring that their tests showed Dogan had been executed by IDF bullets fired at his head at close range). Indeed, Israel was able to announce in advance that it planned to have its IDF thugs board ships of a second aid flotilla carrying many unarmed American citizens, and instead of warning Israel not to harm any of those Americans, Washington warned the Americans that they were putting themselves at risk. Our government even gave Israel the go-ahead in advance to have its boarding parties use violence against those US citizens.

nothing proves that he was murdered, he could have attacked the soldier at close range and the soldier acted in self defense.

if the word 'murder' offends you since you have the religious like belief that Israeli can do no wrong, remove the word murder and the point the author is making still stands.

you can even see actual videos of those people attacking soldiers with metal sticks and knives and dropping one on his head to a lower deck. if the lives of soldiers are endangered they can use deadly force, it was not machine gun bullets but a handgun btw.

you don't really want to start that argument with, me trust me. so better drop it at this stage so not to derail own thread.

you really think highly of yourself dont you. I for one have not witnessed a person argue more poorly on behalf of Israeli's policies than you

i'd actually prefer you started a new thread called 'Eugue falls on his own sword for 10 pages' and we can contain the flotilla argument specifically to there only

we already had that thread and you couldn't bring any proof of idf committing any crimes in that incident.

oh yeah i forgot that shooting 9 people with 30 bullets was merely self defense. those darn civil disobedience performing flotilla participants!

but yeah i created a thread for you to defend israeli ad nauseum, go check it out

you don't perform civil disobedience by dropping soldiers down the deck and bashing them with metal poles and knives.

this article is pretty good, from Salon.com about how the RNC's attacks on Ron Paul have a hint of desperation and panic

  Quote

hen you’re running near the top of the polls, it’s inevitable that your opponents will gang up on you. But there’s something different about the nature of the attacks Ron Paul is now facing – and, potentially, about their implications.

In the past few days, three of Paul’s rivals – Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney andMichele Bachmann – have publicly declared that the Texas congressman will not under any circumstances win the GOP nomination. Bachmann called him “dangerous,” while Gingrich said he wasn’t even sure he’d vote for Paul over Barack Obama. Another candidate, Rick Santorum, said there’s no difference between Paul and Obama on foreign policy and that he’d need “a lot of antacid” to stomach voting for Paul. And Jon Huntsman launched a scathing anti-Paul ad in New Hampshire with a simple title: “Unelectable.”

This is not a run-of-the-mill pile-on. Paul’s foes aren’t simply telling Republicans that he’s not the best choice to be their nominee; they’re telling Republicans that he’s unfit to call himself one of them – that he’s an imposter who isn’t due even the most basic courtesy (“Oh sure, if he ends up being the nominee I’ll be with him…”) that major candidates for the nomination are typically afforded.

It’s an attitude that’s also being encouraged by some of the GOP’s most powerful opinion-shaping forces. Rush Limbaugh has been disdainful of Paul throughout the campaign, with his guest host this week – Mark Steyn – keeping up the campaign. Fox News, whose primetime hosts have alternated betweenignoring and savaging Paul, has been treating him like a pariah since the last campaign, when Paul was denied a seat at a critical pre-New Hampshire debate. And the New Hampshire Union Leader, which boasts one of the country’s most influential conservative editorial pages, branded Paul “truly dangerous” on Thursday

 

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/30/the_excommunication_of_ron_paul/

The GOP have been struggling internally ever since the Tea Party crazies got in. The GOP primaries have been absolutely hilarious with each candidate having their moment in the sun before they do or say something dumb and the next clown steps in. It's all about finding that "not-Romney" candidate, but it's pointless as the more moderate conservatives will end up swinging it to Romney.

I also find it funny that the GOP discourse and opinion is pretty much established by a pill-popping radio shock jock.

i think the GOP was struggling even before the tea party thing happened. They had to carry water for one of the most extreme big government administrations in American history