The GOP Presidential Race = Reality TV Stars and $

Barking Weasel wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Because I believe that a fetus has rights What kind of rights, exactly?  The right to vote, bear arms, have free speech, and all that?

JJLehto wrote: Barking Weasel wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I just came in here to say RON PAUL RON RAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL. A good man, but a weak presidential candidate like every other GOP'er.  Nonetheless, he's the only honest Republican Politician out there.  Fixed. Now that Russ Feingold has been given the boot I'd agree the Paul's are probably the only honest ones.

Barking Weasel wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I just came in here to say RON PAUL RON RAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL. A good man, but a weak presidential candidate like every other GOP'er.  Nonetheless, he's the only honest Republican Politician out there.

Fixed.
Now that Russ Feingold has been given the boot I'd agree the Paul's are probably the only honest ones.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: CCVP wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: CCVP wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: CCVP wrote: I've always been allarmed how degraded the political scene in the US is since the 80's and how we are marching towards that disgrace here since the past 5 years or so. Not that things are perfect here, God no, but electing people just because they are famous or rich. . . . Yeah that hasn't happened here. The governator would like to differ. Someone being famous does not imply they were elected because they were famous. Jesse Ventura certainly wasn't elected because he pinned Hulk Hogan. using an exception as the rule really works when making a point . . . Ummmmm that's funny because it's exactly what you did.

and how using the exception to the exception helps you in any way?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Atavachron wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Atavachron wrote: Well then, sir, I oppose him and that most significant social position utterly and completely, and if you take your principles of freedom to be literal, I would expect you would to.  Is that fair to say? No I don't. If you could convince me otherwise I'd be happy to change my mind though. I thought it was self-expalnitory; a woman's right to a legal abortion is a freedom as any other.  I take the Libertarian stance to support such freedoms.  I do hope that's not incorrect, I mean to be in favor of allowing people to live as they please unless their State dictates otherwise doesn't sound like Liberty to me.  More like Confedralism or something. You're making one of two arguments to take the libertarian position. Either the fetus has no rights or the fetus has aggressed upon the woman. Which is it?

Both, or I suppose for our purposes, the first.  But I can see where this is going and I'm not interested in having a debate on abortion.  My puzzlement is in why someone who believes in ultimate freedom would be so hesitant to support full abortion rights whether or not they find themselves sucked into a philo-scientific argument that, as past threads on the subject show, are mostly fruitless.

Yeah...you mean the literal celebs that are running for office?
Not really an issue, I mean Reagan, the Governator, Ventura, Al Franken. Maybe a few others but out of the 535 people in Congress, the President, Governors, local figures...it's a small %

I thought you meant we elect people more on "likes" than beliefs and what they do, which most countries do I am sure


Edited by JJLehto - May 28 2011 at 20:52

CCVP wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: CCVP wrote: I've always been allarmed how degraded the political scene in the US is since the 80's and how we are marching towards that disgrace here since the past 5 years or so. Not that things are perfect here, God no, but electing people just because they are famous or rich. . . . Yeah that hasn't happened here. The governator would like to differ.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: CCVP wrote: I've always been allarmed how degraded the political scene in the US is since the 80's and how we are marching towards that disgrace here since the past 5 years or so. Not that things are perfect here, God no, but electing people just because they are famous or rich. . . . Yeah that hasn't happened here.

The governator would like to differ.

JJLehto wrote: Well the wealth is not new Caio. Certainly before the 80's! You need to be wealthy to be involved. As for celebs, yeah that is kind of new and horrifying, but in a way it has also always been about the show. I saw this comedian who said in the US we pretty much elect on "star f**king" even back to the early days it was about shallow and opinion over truth! But that's probably the case with most countries, I'd be willing to bet.

What I mean is that this political cicle that you and me are living have its origin in different periods. In the US that can be traced back to the 80's, maked by the lection of the actor Ronal Regan as the president of the nation.

Here, it has started in the first half of the decade, but it only took form in the 2004/2006 elections.

Well the wealth is not new Caio. Certainly before the 80's!
You need to be wealthy to be involved.
As for celebs, yeah that is kind of new and horrifying, but in a way it has also always been about the show.

I saw this comedian who said in the US we pretty much elect on "star f**king" even back to the early days it was about shallow and opinion over truth! But that's probably the case with most countries, I'd be willing to bet.


Edited by JJLehto - May 28 2011 at 20:41

Atavachron wrote: Well then, sir, I oppose him and that most significant social position utterly and completely, and if you take your principles of freedom to be literal, I would expect you would to.  Is that fair to say?