"Freedom" thread or something

Ignore Slarti.  He's just going to disappear, again, till he finds another meaningless quote or cartoon that he think really nails us, anyway.

Edited by manofmystery - February 25 2013 at 20:26

Not a good move for sure, business as usual.

The T wrote: ^And of course you ignored 90% of my post to focus only on the last sentence. I was just posing a question. What is the justification for some people (I'll correct myself) wanting freer and freer abortion? Agree with it or not, I see the justification those who want to restrict or even stop abortion have (saving a life - if it is worth saving or if it is "life" or whatever is another matter). For those in the unrestricted abortion camp, what moves them? As I said, I concede the need for some forms of abortion, even some that don't need peril or rape. I have ways said that. But when I see a ban on abortions after the third month called extreme, I wonder what isn't considered extreme then. I favor the legality of abortion. But not turning it into just another "alternative". It makes it look like just another act in life. That's why I said what I said.

I didn't ignore anything. Find me a significant percentage of the population that "want" your stated premise of "freer and freer abortions" and we can talk. But if you just want to point to some random fringe-troll, you're not making a point, just supplying rhetoric for just another agenda.
You started off representing some significant portion of Americans supporting "freer and freer abortion" which is a complete sack of weasel meat. People are not looking for a day-after f**K-and-suck approach to any degree that can be registered.

Then again, I've never eaten weasel, and it might be awesome. ;)

thellama73 wrote: Exaggeration and hyperbole are common rhetorical devices. I admit freely that I could have chosen my words more carefully, but I think the point I was making was clear. If you were interested in contributing to the discussion, you could have called me out on my exaggerations without your little holier-than-thou storm out speech.

You can't expect to be taken seriously if you preface your remarks with something akin to "I've told you a million times."
I'm not a stranger to those devices, in both giving and receiving, but I use them when I know they'll be taken with the grain of salt with which they're intended.  You can't honestly tell me that when you wrote "the entire American left" you expected everyone to accept you were just bein' a little silly, gol-dangit. ;) It was misrepresentation of an entire ideology.

I always expect libertarians to be more smug than Democrats, but less arrogant than Republicans. Hopefully less ignorant than both.  I just don't like them to be as equally dishonest.

JJLehto wrote: *frinspar* wrote: ^ I agree with your last remarks. The posts I responded to were both based on straw men. There's no point in arguing or feeling the need to invest myself much more when the argument is already dishonest. I was just pointing that out. *frinspar* wrote: As far as lazy goes, it's more that I'm jaded. I've heard it all already, I was just kinda hoping I'd read something different here. Eh...the "how the internet works" thing is quite a straw man itself, the debates here are good. Surely better than anything else on PA. You are right but the thing is....the abortion debate ironically is the worst one. It's ALWAYS straw men... The few times you dig through it and get to the core it always boils down to: it's a life, period. It's a right, period.  No one ever wavers either. In terms of debate its never good and I usually don't participate because it's people spinning the same points. Never expect anything different. Which is why in theory I'd like to see abortion out of all government hands, purely a personal decision between the woman/whoever else is involved and the doctor. In reality though this would upset all, since its either a way to "deny the right", or a way to "keep it legal", depending on which side you fall.

I can't say the debates have been very inspiring so far, at least as far as politics go. But I've only read this thread. It's par for the course with the rest of the 'net.

I agree, abortion is never going to be an easy issue. And I agree 100% that neither you, nor I nor anyone else but a woman and her doctors, and those immediately and directly involved have absolute control over the topic. Everyone else should bite their tongue and sit on their hands. Maybe read the bible and learn something.

CPicard wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: A straw man argument has to actually say something. It can't just be a string of words void of any interpretation. I don't even know what to call that kind of post.  "Blank"?

I'll support that choice.

JJLehto wrote: My mind literally exploded after I learned that over the years in the Senate Obama was always one of the top 2 receivers of campaign money from the banking/finance/insurance sectors. Him and Dodd always the top 2.

I think the fact that his big ticket 'financial sector' appointments basically involved the same faces as the Bush admn, viz, Summers, Geithner, Bernanke, give it away.   I can't tell from the outside but I guess Wall Street is very important to elections now. 

JJLehto wrote: manofmystery wrote: ^ Think you may have just lost everyone here with that last sentence, mate. Yup. Shame, I was all shaking my head in agreement and smiling too, then the bible came up Though like I said, that is good for the internet, though I think it's the right way to go, in real life both liberals and conservatives would hate that. They'd say: GAH! This is just a way to deny/allow abortion...which in a way it is both, yet neither! Indeed, progressives seem to dislike Obama and at best accept him as OK...because as it was pointed out any hope of "breaking free from big business" or anything like that is a joke. His infamous Obamacare just adds another 30+million to a broken, corporatist health system after all. My mind literally exploded after I learned that over the years in the Senate Obama was always one of the top 2 receivers of campaign money from the banking/finance/insurance sectors. Him and Dodd always the top 2. A president of the people against the establishment and money of Romney and Hillary? Maybe. Another president representing big interests? No doubt.

I'm saving a couple of thousands of dollars a year thanks to Obama(Romney)care.


Edited by King of Loss - March 01 2013 at 12:54

JJLehto wrote: My mind literally exploded

rogerthat wrote: JJLehto wrote: My mind literally exploded after I learned that over the years in the Senate Obama was always one of the top 2 receivers of campaign money from the banking/finance/insurance sectors. Him and Dodd always the top 2. I think the fact that his big ticket 'financial sector' appointments basically involved the same faces as the Bush admn, viz, Summers, Geithner, Bernanke, give it away.   I can't tell from the outside but I guess Wall Street is very important to elections now.

Yeah sorry, but not really, I couldn't give a flying f**k about the literally thing...I use it as people obviously understand.
Grammar nazis annoy me anyway.


As for the brain exploding fear not, I scooped it up and shoved it back in my head through the ears.
According to many, by becoming a libertarian I am now an uneducated baboon that throws my feces around and runs into walls...so this shouldn't have any real impact on me

Edit: Also I can start keeping my $$ in the head cavity so the government can't get at it


Edited by JJLehto - March 02 2013 at 18:55

If you aren't currently watching Rand Paul's fillibuster of John Brennan's CIA nomination, on CSPAN 2, then you are missing a damn good lecture.

Edited by manofmystery - March 06 2013 at 12:40