|
|
On November 05 2012 00:36 Cainam wrote:
Can't wait for Wednesday so this thread and similar threads across the internet can be done with
there will be at least a week of winners rubbing it in the losers faces.
|
On November 05 2012 00:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 00:36 Cainam wrote:
Can't wait for Wednesday so this thread and similar threads across the internet can be done with there will be at least a week of winners rubbing it in the losers faces.
There will be at least four years of winners rubbing it in the losers' faces.
|
On November 05 2012 00:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 00:36 Cainam wrote:
Can't wait for Wednesday so this thread and similar threads across the internet can be done with there will be at least a week of winners rubbing it in the losers faces.
Longer than that, especially if Romney winds. We would have the entire lame duck session to talk about!
|
|
|
On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency? In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election. Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism. who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now. the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much...
Jesus Christ, we must have answered that ridiculous argument of yours a thousand times already. It doesn't matter that both parties have engaged in filibuster. What matters is HOW OFTEN they do it. From what I've read, the Republicans have engaged in more filibustering since they became the minority than both parties combined during the rest of the history of the U.S. Stop trying to equate the Democrats and the Republicans on that matter - Republicans have clearly been WAY more obstructionists than the Democrats before them. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
|
You guys seriously think that the Senate has a chance to stay Dem?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are just all over the map now. it's fine to say obama might lose because of unexpected wingnut turnout, but the senate is pretty secure.
|
On November 05 2012 01:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency? In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election. Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism. who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now. the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much... Jesus Christ, we must have answered that ridiculous argument of yours a thousand times already. It doesn't matter that both parties have engaged in filibuster. What matters is HOW OFTEN they do it. From what I've read, the Republicans have engaged in more filibustering since they became the minority than both parties combined during the rest of the history of the U.S. Stop trying to equate the Democrats and the Republicans on that matter - Republicans have clearly been WAY more obstructionists than the Democrats before them. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
And for the hundredth time, a filibuster is just ONE WAY to measure obstructionism.
|
On November 05 2012 01:10 Maxyim wrote:
You guys seriously think that the Senate has a chance to stay Dem?
I actually think it will...
|
On November 05 2012 00:42 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 00:36 Cainam wrote:
Can't wait for Wednesday so this thread and similar threads across the internet can be done with there will be at least a week of winners rubbing it in the losers faces.
There could be a week of wondering who the fuck won. Ohio has hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots requested, which have not been turned in. If these people show up to vote on election day, they will only be able to cast a provisional ballot, which is not counted until a week after. With that many potential provisional ballots and the likelihood Ohio may be close, we may not have a concession until those ballots are counted.
|
On November 05 2012 01:14 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 01:10 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency? In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election. Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism. who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now. the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much... Jesus Christ, we must have answered that ridiculous argument of yours a thousand times already. It doesn't matter that both parties have engaged in filibuster. What matters is HOW OFTEN they do it. From what I've read, the Republicans have engaged in more filibustering since they became the minority than both parties combined during the rest of the history of the U.S. Stop trying to equate the Democrats and the Republicans on that matter - Republicans have clearly been WAY more obstructionists than the Democrats before them. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. And for the hundredth time, a filibuster is just ONE WAY to measure obstructionism.
GOP using the filibuster 1000000 more than Dems is a pretty good measure. The famous quote from mitch mcconnell is pretty clear.
It's hard not to believe our own two eyes.
EDIT: A google search of 'obstructionism' is pretty funny. Guess what party comes up for nearly every article? I don't think its all liberal bias.
|
On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency? In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election. Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism. who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now. the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much...
Tell me something here, do you:
1) Not know that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of fillibusters
2) Think it's irrelevant that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of filibusters
3) Ignore that fact because it doesn't suit your point
4) Actually think you're the one that's intellectually honest
|
eh, he is no different than the people he says are lying to themselves.
What we are actually quibbling about here is who gets to decide when the woman’s reason is good enough. With the classic pro-choice position, the person who gets to decide if the woman’s reason is good enough is the woman.
That fails to acknowledge that pro-choice is also deciding when a reason to kill a fetus is good enough. He's trying to take the high-road when the issue is not as clear as he likes to make it. Now, I side with him, but that doesn't mean this argument is convincing.
|
On November 05 2012 01:14 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 01:10 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency? In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election. Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism. who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now. the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much... Jesus Christ, we must have answered that ridiculous argument of yours a thousand times already. It doesn't matter that both parties have engaged in filibuster. What matters is HOW OFTEN they do it. From what I've read, the Republicans have engaged in more filibustering since they became the minority than both parties combined during the rest of the history of the U.S. Stop trying to equate the Democrats and the Republicans on that matter - Republicans have clearly been WAY more obstructionists than the Democrats before them. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. And for the hundredth time, a filibuster is just ONE WAY to measure obstructionism.
So? Let's settle the matter a filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering?
|
On November 05 2012 01:18 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency? In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election. Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism. who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now. the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much... Tell me something here, do you: 1) Not know that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of fillibusters 2) Think it's irrelevant that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of filibusters 3) Ignore that fact because it doesn't suit your point 4) Actually think you're the one that's intellectually honest
Sigh.
You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have.
Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all.
|
On November 05 2012 01:20 BluePanther wrote:eh, he is no different than the people he says are lying to themselves. Show nested quote +What we are actually quibbling about here is who gets to decide when the woman’s reason is good enough. With the classic pro-choice position, the person who gets to decide if the woman’s reason is good enough is the woman. That fails to acknowledge that pro-choice is also deciding when a reason to kill a fetus is good enough.
That's a nice one liner that does nothing to address the points the author brings up.
I liked how the author explained the double standard of believing life begins at conception. If that is truly a person, then any woman, or young girl, who has an abortion is guilty of aggravated murder, and potentially punishable by death.
|
On November 05 2012 01:20 BluePanther wrote:eh, he is no different than the people he says are lying to themselves. Show nested quote +What we are actually quibbling about here is who gets to decide when the woman’s reason is good enough. With the classic pro-choice position, the person who gets to decide if the woman’s reason is good enough is the woman. That fails to acknowledge that pro-choice is also deciding when a reason to kill a fetus is good enough.
How do some people not realize they're fighting on the wrong side of history when they try to deny people common sense freedoms. How many cases does it take?
|
On November 05 2012 01:22 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 01:18 Feartheguru wrote:On November 05 2012 00:30 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 00:01 Wombat_NI wrote:On November 04 2012 23:30 WniO wrote:On November 04 2012 23:17 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 23:08 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2012 23:04 Feartheguru wrote:On November 04 2012 22:59 Teradur wrote:On November 04 2012 07:32 Defacer wrote:David Frum, probably my favorite conservative pundit, endorsed Mitt Romney the other day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.htmlUnfortunately, as Andrew Sullivan points out, the fundamental basis for Frum's endorsement is the belief that Romney is a big fucking liar that's just saying whatever he thinks he needs to to win. And even then, you can only cross your fingers that your interpretation of Romney's actual, secret plans are correct. Even though those plans don't exist. Good job, Republican Party. Nice strat, bro. From the Article: "The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve." I think David Frum is a reasonable man, but I must say that I have heard arguments like this a few times over the last weeks and I think it is a totally twisted way of approaching the "tea-party extremism"-problem. How can Frum, as a voter, reward these kind of tactics and, as a pundit, justify to give it as a reason to vote for Romney? This kind of bullshit logic is exactly what I've been complaining about. If Republicans win it'll set a precedent that holding the country hostage wins elections. What's to stop them from doing this every time Democrats win the presidency? In every other country i would say the people. in the US im not so sure. i guess we will have the answer next time the congress gets up for re-election. Except if the people are dumb even to buy that Obama is the reason for the poor economy, despite more jobs now than 4 years ago when jobs were decreasing at 500k/month, if Republicans win they'll get credit for the incoming recovery, and profit from their obstructionism. who cares as long as the economy is doing well. its like in sports Winning is all that matters and the dems were just as dicks to bush since they had control, not allowing shit to pass, just like the republicans trying to deny as much as obama can put through right now. the real question is once obama wins AND has control of the the senate/house will we see real change? The Democrats obstruction of Bush was many magnitudes below the ridiculous behaviour of some of the GoP to Obama. That said, politically it's been a smart strategy to filibuster the Democrat-sponsored legislation at record rates, provided that the Dems get blamed for a lack of progress, which it appears in many quarters they are. IT IS THE SAME EXACT STRATEGY THAT DEMS USED WHEN THEY WERE THE MINORITY. I cannot for the life of me understand how some of you can say things like this with a straight face.... It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest it makes it hard for me to take you seriously. These same people talk about how conservatives are intellectually dishonest on tax and budget matters. The hypocrisy is too much... Tell me something here, do you: 1) Not know that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of fillibusters 2) Think it's irrelevant that Republicans have set a record many times the previous one for the number of filibusters 3) Ignore that fact because it doesn't suit your point 4) Actually think you're the one that's intellectually honest Sigh. You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have. Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all.
Only one argument is necessary when all you can respond to it with is this LOL
|
On November 05 2012 01:24 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 01:20 BluePanther wrote:eh, he is no different than the people he says are lying to themselves. What we are actually quibbling about here is who gets to decide when the woman’s reason is good enough. With the classic pro-choice position, the person who gets to decide if the woman’s reason is good enough is the woman. That fails to acknowledge that pro-choice is also deciding when a reason to kill a fetus is good enough. How do some people not realize they're fighting on the wrong side of history when they try to deny people common sense freedoms. How many cases does it take?
You do realize I'm pro-choice, right?
Telling someone their argument is shitty doesn't mean you have to disagree with the conclusion.
|
On November 05 2012 01:25 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 01:24 Feartheguru wrote:On November 05 2012 01:20 BluePanther wrote:eh, he is no different than the people he says are lying to themselves. What we are actually quibbling about here is who gets to decide when the woman’s reason is good enough. With the classic pro-choice position, the person who gets to decide if the woman’s reason is good enough is the woman. That fails to acknowledge that pro-choice is also deciding when a reason to kill a fetus is good enough. How do some people not realize they're fighting on the wrong side of history when they try to deny people common sense freedoms. How many cases does it take? You do realize I'm pro-choice, right? Telling someone their argument is shitty doesn't mean you have to disagree with the conclusion.
Who said I was talking about you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
