The GOP Presidential Race = Reality TV Stars and $

Maybe we aren't mortal enemies after all?

Edited by Equality 7-2521 - May 28 2011 at 21:13

Equality 7-2521 wrote: CCVP wrote: 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? I wasn't. I was providing a counterexample to the fact that being famous and being elected implies that you were elected because you were famous. Having produced this counterexample, the burden would now be on you to present further evidence even though if you were to prove this, it would mean little since you cited but one case. On the same page now?

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.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: You told me you didn't want to hear my justification so I'm not sure I can answer that. Libertarians are as divided on abortion as the general population. The answer to the rest of those things is of course yes uniformly.

I find that a fascinating anomaly (and thank you for the measured response, it helps get past the crap)--  it indicates abortion is an even deeper issue than I'd thought, and transcends even someone's core political beliefs.  Do you think religion plays a part in that discrepancy?

Great exchange, guys, really interesting

CCVP wrote: 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.

All's fair in love and war, sadly.

CCVP wrote: 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.

True, being rich can help you get elected.  Campaigns are expensive.  But there are many other qualities a presidential candidate must have in order to run a successful campaign, such as wide-ranging influence and a network of powerful friends.  Obama got the unwavering support of Harry Reid and other congressional democrats early on in his campaign.  Bush had his own long-standing political allies.

In the end, its always about the votes and not the wealth or status.  Sadly, in order for people to recognize a candidate there usually has to be a lot of money spent in this day and age.
  

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.

You are right in the last sentence, and basically I agree this is the case where maybe an exception has to be made. I just don't want the matter to be taken so lightly.

Anyway, do you ever talk to people without sounding like a complete arrogant prick?

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 ? 

CCVP wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: CCVP wrote:  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.   Your distortions sound more like Anti-American bias rather than having any historical foundation whatsoever. George Washington was noted to be a very principled and trustworthy individual -- that he sought liberty from a repressive regime does not change his principles. Washington was also religiously tolerant, and like Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian; therefore, the surprise attack on the Hessian contingent at Trenton was a masterful bit of strategy.   As far as WWI, you really have your facts skewed. The truces that occurred along the front during Christmas were not official but spontaneous among many dead tired and homesick soldiers on both sides. As the war progressed, these unofficial truces became more sporadic. The desolation of "no-man's land", and the abject futility of trench war in WWI were what drove these unofficial truces. In WWII, the Nazis thought nothing of conducting major attacks at Bastogne during Christmas. Prior to WWI, the lack of battles during the holiday season had less to do with religious commemoration than war being "out of season" during December. Major troop movements were literally impossible in the middle of winter, and any winter manuevers were considered dangerous (Napoleon's retreat from Moscow is a notable example).   Coming from Brazil, a country known for political instability, military dictatorships and the overthrow of democratically elected governments, you have some gall denigrating Washington who, after two terms as president, actually turned down another term in office, as he believed holding the office any further ran counter to the premise of a constitutional democracy. That's something Brazil didn't learn until 1994. But hey, it's always easier to criticize someone else than checking for skeletons in your own closet.   LOL, talk about cult of personality in the land of the "free".

You made statements that were factually incorrect. I merely pointed out your biased rhetoric, So "LOL" on your profound lack of historical perspective.

That is good news