The GOP Presidential Race = Reality TV Stars and $

toroddfuglesteg wrote: Still want to remain rebels, you rebellious people ?

First we rebelled against the monarchy, then some of us rebelled against the rest of us.  These days we seem most adept at producing revolting politicians. 

CCVP wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: CCVP wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: CCVP wrote:   Evidence to what? That being famous helps you in being elected? You've got to be kidding. Washington himself got elected due to his fame on revolutionary times. Ulysses Grant due to his fame as being a military leader. Same with Eisenhower. I'm sure there are more cases, but those are the ones I can remember on the top of my head. So you're going to change what you said? You said people get elected because they are rich and famous. That's much different than saying that being famous helps you. And lol @ your examples. You working with a very skewed definition of fame. Washington didn't get elected because of name recognition. He got elected for being known to be a good leader, trustworthy, and of principle. Hmm, I guess a guerrilla military leader really gets elected because of being trustworthy and of principle, even if he attacked the enemy in the night of Christmas eve, a date that even WW1 respected and stopped the battles during it. And, oh yes, I forgot about rich. then I guess the list will be much broader. Both Bush(es), Jimmy Carter, Kennedy, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt and all the first 10 presidents. Ummm yes. You say guerrilla military leader as if its a pejorative thing. Osama Bin Laden was considered a man of high principles by his followers.  You're really just stating names and not even attempting to justify anything. As with any conversation with you, this is pointless. You're just trolling, but you don't even know it. I'm not attacking you. I'm just telling you that I find arguing anything with you to be very frustrating and would like some real responses. Jeez, ad hominem? How kind of you. . .

Equality 7-2521 wrote: CCVP wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: CCVP wrote:   Evidence to what? That being famous helps you in being elected? You've got to be kidding. Washington himself got elected due to his fame on revolutionary times. Ulysses Grant due to his fame as being a military leader. Same with Eisenhower. I'm sure there are more cases, but those are the ones I can remember on the top of my head. So you're going to change what you said? You said people get elected because they are rich and famous. That's much different than saying that being famous helps you. And lol @ your examples. You working with a very skewed definition of fame. Washington didn't get elected because of name recognition. He got elected for being known to be a good leader, trustworthy, and of principle. Hmm, I guess a guerrilla military leader really gets elected because of being trustworthy and of principle, even if he attacked the enemy in the night of Christmas eve, a date that even WW1 respected and stopped the battles during it. And, oh yes, I forgot about rich. then I guess the list will be much broader. Both Bush(es), Jimmy Carter, Kennedy, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt and all the first 10 presidents. Ummm yes. You say guerrilla military leader as if its a pejorative thing. Osama Bin Laden was considered a man of high principles by his followers.  You're really just stating names and not even attempting to justify anything. As with any conversation with you, this is pointless. You're just trolling, but you don't even know it.

Jeez, ad hominem? How kind of you. . .

CCVP wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: CCVP wrote:   Evidence to what? That being famous helps you in being elected? You've got to be kidding. Washington himself got elected due to his fame on revolutionary times. Ulysses Grant due to his fame as being a military leader. Same with Eisenhower. I'm sure there are more cases, but those are the ones I can remember on the top of my head. So you're going to change what you said? You said people get elected because they are rich and famous. That's much different than saying that being famous helps you. And lol @ your examples. You working with a very skewed definition of fame. Washington didn't get elected because of name recognition. He got elected for being known to be a good leader, trustworthy, and of principle. Hmm, I guess a guerrilla military leader really gets elected because of being trustworthy and of principle, even if he attacked the enemy in the night of Christmas eve, a date that even WW1 respected and stopped the battles during it. And, oh yes, I forgot about rich. then I guess the list will be much broader. Both Bush(es), Jimmy Carter, Kennedy, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt and all the first 10 presidents.

Atavachron wrote: The T wrote: I used to be pro-choice mainly because I still was quite flawed in my thinking. To anyone who wants to be consistent because consistency is the only thing that assures equal protection to everybody, abortion is an special issue. Sure, women have the right to do what they want with their bodies, but the infant inside them is NOT their bodies, is a different entity, independent, a human being. Now, one can put some sort of timeline as to when a personnstarts being one, what how exact can that be? Who decides that? In the end it will be an arbitrary decision that puts human life in the hands of people thinking of definitions. And the moment you decide that some human beings can be killed, is the moment you open the door to worse things. Pro-life people make the others look like hungry murderers, but pro-choice people make the others look like anti-women. In fact, thebreal name for both camps should be pro-fascism-deciding-what-other-people-do and pro-f**king-without-responsibility. The real problem is one of logic and consistency and principles. Either you value all human life or none at all. If my girlfriend were to get pregnant, all my principles would be in battle with my fear and I can't say what i'd do. But that's why I never let that to chance. I try to avoid that risk and control it as best as we can so that I never have to make that decision. Other people can do the same, it's not that difficult. It's called personal responsibility. Raped women? Of course it's a problem. But then again the consistemcy problem arises. The rapist (if caught) rots in jail while the women aborts. I'd rather have the rapist work and pay for the child to be born and protect the mother legally soshe can't suffer bad consequences, and then shemcan decide whethernshenadoptsbthe child or not. T,  I love you bruther and I really didn't want to respond to any abortion issues but that argument is so full of holes I don't know where to begin, so I'll focus on one;  "And the moment you decide some human beings can be killed is the moment you open the door to worse things." How do we know what 'worse thing' was caused by the next 'worse thing' ?   We already have abortion, so which worse things that we consequently have do you refer?  Capital Punishment?  Torture?  Do you support some of these things but not all?  And if you do, then how can you define it as a worse thing ?

As I said my post wasn't the most clear ever but I stand to what I said (rape issue apart). I don't ever support capital punishment or torture. Please I don't want the classical "let's wait until someone kills your entire family and see if you are anti-death penalty" because that's a total fail. I'm not clear why some people are so against the death penalty and so pro abortion and vice versa. Both entail the killing of a person. A fetus is a person. Who gets to decide when does a person become one? As I mentioned the rape situation is special since the act that lead to pregnancy wasn't voluntary and even then it's sad that the human inside pays for somebody else's crimes, but maybe here it's understandable. I don't see the death penalty as justified, ever. I don't see torture as justified, ever. If an extreme situation when the torture of someone may lead to save milion of lives arises, I hope I don't have to be the one deciding. From here, from a position of comfort, I say no, there has to be another way. The state that allows tortures first of foreigners will eventually start torturing their own. And both cases are morally wrong.

Henry Plainview wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: obviously have no children of your own. This is, and always will be, the most bullsh*t, patronizing appeal to emotion that can ever be said in an internet argument. No I don't have children, but that doesn't mean (exaggerating here I know you have not said this) your plan to execute everyone on the sex offender list has any basis in reason and you shouldn't be flaunting your refusal to move behind raw emotion... No you don't have children, and neither are you a woman. But you think you can make decisions for them based on what? Some clever little internet article or wikipedia? Whatever. I can put myself in the shoes of other parents having to live such a nightmare, and no, I can't maintain a cold, clinical outlook on the matter. I would not force such hell on anyone, but for someone like you, it's obviously a simple legal matter and you wipe your hands of it. I'm not deciding anything for anyone, I have no power over anything. But emotion has no place in the law. Emotions make us do stupid things.

Like argue on the internet.

Henry Plainview wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: obviously have no children of your own. This is, and always will be, the most bullsh*t, patronizing appeal to emotion that can ever be said in an internet argument. No I don't have children, but that doesn't mean (exaggerating here I know you have not said this) your plan to execute everyone on the sex offender list has any basis in reason and you shouldn't be flaunting your refusal to move behind raw emotion...

The T wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: The T wrote: I don't see how not liking abortion is mysoginistic... T, you obviously missed my point. Are you even faintly aware of the trauma a rape victim goes thorough? The suffering and utter embarrassment of having to come forward and then be subjected to a trial where the opposing attorney tries to paint you not as a victim , but as "asking for it"? And then you expect a rape victim, after going through that hell, to also go through a nine month pregnancy (at a physical danger to herself), and every day have to be reminded of the crime? I am rather amazed that you haven't put yourself in the woman's shoes. You were being completely unfair and actually cruel. I recognize my post was hastily done and I sounded bad. Of course rape is the most extreme situation and it needs much more thought than what I just put into it. But I still think there's need for further analysis of the issue. Anyway, I apologize too.

The Dark Elf wrote: The T wrote: I don't see how not liking abortion is mysoginistic... T, you obviously missed my point. Are you even faintly aware of the trauma a rape victim goes thorough? The suffering and utter embarrassment of having to come forward and then be subjected to a trial where the opposing attorney tries to paint you not as a victim , but as "asking for it"? And then you expect a rape victim, after going through that hell, to also go through a nine month pregnancy (at a physical danger to herself), and every day have to be reminded of the crime? I am rather amazed that you haven't put yourself in the woman's shoes. You were being completely unfair and actually cruel.

I recognize my post was hastily done and I sounded bad. Of course rape is the most extreme situation and it needs much more thought than what I just put into it. But I still think there's need for further analysis of the issue. Anyway, I apologize too.

The Dark Elf wrote: The T wrote: I don't see how not liking abortion is mysoginistic... T, you obviously missed my point. Are you even faintly aware of the trauma a rape victim goes thorough? The suffering and utter embarrassment of having to come forward and then be subjected to a trial where the opposing attorney tries to paint you not as a victim , but as "asking for it"? And then you expect a rape victim, after going through that hell, to also go through a nine month pregnancy (at a physical danger to herself), and every day have to be reminded of the crime? I am rather amazed that you haven't put yourself in the woman's shoes. You were being completely unfair and actually cruel.

Yes, rape cases in the US (and I assume elsewhere) are horrible bullsh*t. But if you believe that a fetus is a person the rape victim argument is trivial: killing an innocent person is far more cruel. Being against abortion except in cases of rape and incest makes no logical sense whatsoever, but for some reason it seems to be prevalent, I assume because people's brains shut off when confronted with emotional issues. Pro-lifers are usually called misogynists by feminists/pro-choice advocates to try to get them to shut up, but it's still not a good debating topic. 

The Dark Elf wrote: obviously have no children of your own.

This is, and always will be, the most bullsh*t, patronizing appeal to emotion that can ever be said in an internet argument. No I don't have children, but that doesn't mean (exaggerating here I know you have not said this) your plan to execute everyone on the sex offender list has any basis in reason and you shouldn't be flaunting your refusal to move behind raw emotion. 

And damn it, how the hell did I get baited into writing this post, much less in a thread about the GOP Primary?


Edited by Henry Plainview - May 29 2011 at 00:13