Oh yeah. A politics/abortion thread. I think I'll defer to my better instincts and rub fiberglass into my eyes instead.

as long as you promise them a pro life judge you could piss on the constitution. they don't care.

I appologize on behalf of PA for Tom Ridge

I really don't care about abortion. I mean, you shouldn't do it and it's wrong....but if it's a morality issue, then it's between you and your God. As a matter of public policy, it's none of our business what a woman discusses with her doctor. If I believe in the mantra of 'less government, more freedom' then I have to concede the abortion issue to the pro-choice crowd and hope/pray that a woman makes the right decision.

The Republicans need to get back to fiscal conservatism. we need to get the hell out of the morality business.

SushiJoe: I appologize on behalf of PA for Tom Ridge

That's why Ridge would be such an awful pick: the pro-choice thing kills him with the right-wing base of the Republican party, and pretty much everyone else knows him as the douche who gave us that color code system and told us to buy duct tape to stop nukes or some dumb shiat like that. He's a clown to either side of the political spectrum.

Weaver95: The Republicans need to get back to fiscal conservatism. we need to get the hell out of the morality business.

Here, here. It's not like politicians have morals anyway considering most of them are/were lawyers.

Weaver95: The Republicans need to get back to fiscal conservatism. we need to get the hell out of the morality business.

Since when are you a Republican?

jake_lex: That's why Ridge would be such an awful pick: the pro-choice thing kills him with the right-wing base of the Republican party, and pretty much everyone else knows him as the douche who gave us that color code system and told us to buy duct tape to stop nukes or some dumb shiat like that. He's a clown to either side of the political spectrum.

Why should they care if it irks the evangelicals? They'll vote Republican no matter what.

DamnYankees: Weaver95: The Republicans need to get back to fiscal conservatism. we need to get the hell out of the morality business.

Since when are you a Republican?

'we' in the royal sense of the word. The democrats preach 'morality' as well, only they tend to call it 'environmentally friendly' and use words like 'sustainable' and 'renewable'. Same apocalypse, different god.

Weaver95: 'we' in the royal sense of the word. The democrats preach 'morality' as well, only they tend to call it 'environmentally friendly' and use words like 'sustainable' and 'renewable'. Same apocalypse, different god.

You think environmentalism is a morality play?

DamnYankees: Weaver95: 'we' in the royal sense of the word. The democrats preach 'morality' as well, only they tend to call it 'environmentally friendly' and use words like 'sustainable' and 'renewable'. Same apocalypse, different god.

You think environmentalism is a morality play?

I would have thought that was obvious by this point....

I'm the kind of guy that tended to vote Republican and thinks there aren't enough abortions being performed.

Weaver95: I would have thought that was obvious by this point....

I don't even know how to respond to that. If we have policies in place which pollute and damage our country, we should try to fix those, no? I don't see how this is any different than any other form of public policy.

Weaver95: I really don't care about abortion. I mean, you shouldn't do it and it's wrong....but if it's a morality issue, then it's between you and your God. As a matter of public policy, it's none of our business what a woman discusses with her doctor. If I believe in the mantra of 'less government, more freedom' then I have to concede the abortion issue to the pro-choice crowd and hope/pray that a woman makes the right decision.

The Republicans need to get back to fiscal conservatism. we need to get the hell out of the morality business.

this. and oddly enough, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, well, that's not true, I'm more "issue by issue" but to hear this point that I truely feel most people hopefully can agree on, makes me happy. personally I've always said, politically, I'm pro-choice, because each person has the right to choose how to live their life, and personally, if I were a woman, I don't think I could ever justify myself having an abortion. Sometimes I think that if the rest of the republican part thought the way that you think, younger generations would begin to take the party as a whole seriously again. Also, the MSM is trying to make something of Obama's response to that question, and while I think it was a poor choice of words, he was trying to find the right way to say exactly what you and I both agree on. Less government when it comes to morals. Isn't that the reason this country was founded in the first place?

Dancin_In_Anson: I'm the kind of guy that tended to vote Republican and thinks there aren't enough abortions being performed.

I've never understood the Democrat's dedication to abortion. Less kids means less taxable worker base. Socialism *needs* a stable (preferably large) population in order to achieve any sort of success. Aborting kids in droves only harms their long term economic goals. I mean, immigration can help in the short term, but industrialized nations tend to suffer from population decline over the long term. And even massive population increases from immigration cause all sorts of long term issues (esp in terms of cultural impact).

Then again, I've never understood how a party that says they're for less government can try to tell a woman what she can or can't have her doctor do.

DamnYankees: Weaver95: I would have thought that was obvious by this point....

I don't even know how to respond to that. If we have policies in place which pollute and damage our country, we should try to fix those, no? I don't see how this is any different than any other form of public policy.

That's very similar to the reasoning from pro-life candidates.

Weaver95: That's very similar to the reasoning from pro-life candidates.

Yes, and abortion is a legitimate argument because its a question of murder. I don't consider pro-lifers to be moralizing, because they are trying to stop harm. I disagree with them, but that's their view.

A moralizing law is the kind which makes an action illegal which harms no one at all and everyone involved in consents to - ie laws against sodomy, gambling, prositution, drugs, etc.

Any law which tries to prevent a harm to a non-consenting party is a valid law to debate, as far as I'm concerned.

Weaver95: I've never understood the Democrat's dedication to abortion.

Then again, I've never understood how a party that says they're for less government can try to tell a woman what she can or can't have her doctor do.

Well stated.

DamnYankees: Any law which tries to prevent a harm to a non-consenting party is a valid law to debate, as far as I'm concerned.

Except that you and I both know that some of the more fanatical eco-nuts have (ab)used the law to stop legitimate development. Science is secondary to some of them, and sometimes not even that. Their definition of 'harm' is so outragous that it borders on neo-luddite philosophies. They're Amish in outlook, replacing 'god' with 'gaia'.

resonable people can reach an agreement that balances the needs of industrial development and environmental concerns. But with so many wackos infesting the greenie movement, that sort of balance is almost impossible to reach. And that struggle in many ways mirrors that of the pro-life/pro-choice debates.

Weaver95: Except that you and I both know that some of the more fanatical eco-nuts have (ab)used the law to stop legitimate development. Science is secondary to some of them, and sometimes not even that. Their definition of 'harm' is so outragous that it borders on neo-luddite philosophies. They're Amish in outlook, replacing 'god' with 'gaia'.

I agree some of them are morons. I fail to see how this reflects on environmentalism as a legitimate area for public discourse. There are morons in every policy debate.

Weaver95: resonable people can reach an agreement that balances the needs of industrial development and environmental concerns. But with so many wackos infesting the greenie movement, that sort of balance is almost impossible to reach. And that struggle in many ways mirrors that of the pro-life/pro-choice debates.

I really don't know what kind of whackos you're talking about who are having that big of an impact. This sounds like a serious boogyman argument.

And, even if so, environmentalism is a very valid form of public policy and is not in any way a 'moral' sector of government more than anything else.

And while we're on the subject of medical morality - another thing i've never understood is the objection that some fundies have to giving young girls that cervical cancer vaccine. It's a frickin CURE FOR CANCER YOU IDIOTS! But somehow they think that giving a young woman protection from a form of cancer will encourage 'immoral behavior'. Um....no. It prevents a disease. A disease is not a punishment from God, it's just a disease. it doesn't moralize, it just takes advantage of a biological function in order to propagate. it's not good, it's not evil it just 'is'. And preventing it from spreading is the only intelligent thing to do.

DamnYankees: I really don't know what kind of whackos you're talking about who are having that big of an impact. This sounds like a serious boogyman argument.

Then I suggest you hit the library and do some reading.

And, even if so, environmentalism is a very valid form of public policy and is not in any way a 'moral' sector of government more than anything else.

Do you remember the infamous bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich? That's the sort of moralizing i'm referring to here.

Weaver95: And while we're on the subject of medical morality - another thing i've never understood is the objection that some fundies have to giving young girls that cervical cancer vaccine. It's a frickin CURE FOR CANCER YOU IDIOTS! But somehow they think that giving a young woman protection from a form of cancer will encourage 'immoral behavior'. Um....no. It prevents a disease. A disease is not a punishment from God, it's just a disease. it doesn't moralize, it just takes advantage of a biological function in order to propagate. it's not good, it's not evil it just 'is'. And preventing it from spreading is the only intelligent thing to do.

this. and the post before. and the post before that. this reminds me why I have all of your posts in green

Weaver95: Do you remember the infamous bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich? That's the sort of moralizing i'm referring to here.

How is that moralizing? You haven't explained it at all - at all, Weaver.

DamnYankees: Weaver95: Do you remember the infamous bet between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich? That's the sort of moralizing i'm referring to here.

How is that moralizing? You haven't explained it at all - at all, Weaver.

*sigh*

read up on that bet and ponder the implications.

Weaver95: read up on that bet and ponder the implications.

No - I know the bet. Make your own argument. You know me - we've talked alot in these boards. You know I listen to an argument. Make one.

SushiJoe: this. and the post before. and the post before that. this reminds me why I have all of your posts in green

Conflating morality and health care while trying to write legislation is just too dangerous a mix to allow. Abortion is wrong because it's murder, but letting a woman contract cervical cancer is ok because she was obviously a slut is perfectly ok?

Idiots.

We already had a politics/abortion flamewar thread. In fact, its still going. Admins, making another one will cause the universe to explode!

DamnYankees: Weaver95: read up on that bet and ponder the implications.

No - I know the bet. Make your own argument. You know me - we've talked alot in these boards. You know I listen to an argument. Make one.

This is one of those zen sorts of situations. either you achive enlightenment on your own or you don't. Nothing I say or do could possibly convince you.

read up on both parties, the nature of the bet and how it turned out. And this time really think about the implications, esp in light of Ehrlich's writings and influence on the greenie movement as a whole.

If it isn't obvious after that....then it's probably pointless to continue the conversation.

Weaver95: If it isn't obvious after that....then it's probably pointless to continue the conversation.

You know what, man. F**k you. I rarely use that language on these boards, and I try to argue calmly. But your incredible arrogance, which is sadly all too common among political extremists, makes you a serious pain in the ass. You're willing to discuss things to a certain degree, but anytime you are actually challenged, you become a condescending asshole who never bothers to explain himself and acts like anyone who disagrees is just stupid.

And you wonder why your political ideas fail miserably in the marketplace of public ideas.

DamnYankees: Weaver95: If it isn't obvious after that....then it's probably pointless to continue the conversation.

You know what, man. F**k you. I rarely use that language on these boards, and I try to argue calmly. But your incredible arrogance, which is sadly all too common among political extremists, makes you a serious pain in the ass. You're willing to discuss things to a certain degree, but anytime you are actually challenged, you become a condescending asshole who never bothers to explain himself and acts like anyone who disagrees is just stupid.

And you wonder why your political ideas fail miserably in the marketplace of public ideas.

Yep, I get that from fundies too. Ah well, least you didn't try to exorcise my demons.

What I don't guess is why these dumbasses choose the one single issue to vote based around something the president can't do anything about.

If the president can't do anything about it, who really believes that pro-lifers are going to stay home and let obama win because of a vice president's stand on a constitutional issue governed by the courts?

Thank goodness we got that idiot out of the governor's mansion.
shame it was because he got a promotion.

SilentStrider: Thank goodness we got that idiot out of the governor's mansion.
shame it was because he got a promotion.

I've actually had dinner with Tom Ridge. Back when Dad was in the legislature, they worked on a couple bills together. He's not a bad guy, but my impression is that he tends to ignore any unintended consequences from his decisions. Which is a fairly common fault of most politicans these days.

I doubt the guy would remember me tho. that was a couple years back and i'm not a very interesting person.

Dear God, please stop letting abortion become an issue this year.

spill_thrill: Dear God, please stop letting abortion become an issue this year.

I think that's something we can all agree on.

Sammy Jenkins: spill_thrill: Dear God, please stop letting abortion become an issue this year.

Won't happen until as long as Christians exist. Stupid farking superstitious shiats.

3/10. not your best work.

Trap-Door Spider: McCain just needs to pick Romney and get it over with.

So he can get a pro-life and pro-choice VP at the same time? Clever. Get both a guy who's been for gay civil unions and opposed to them? Clever.

Weaver95:
I've actually had dinner with Tom Ridge.

He gets really annoyed, though, when you give his cell phone number, home address, and pictures of the inside of his home out to people for a practical joke.

Sigh Those were the days when I was more likely to do crap like that. Wow, does that get you yelled at, though.

Jeremy Bates: Weaver95: DamnYankees: Weaver95: 'we' in the royal sense of the word. The democrats preach 'morality' as well, only they tend to call it 'environmentally friendly' and use words like 'sustainable' and 'renewable'. Same apocalypse, different god.

You think environmentalism is a morality play?

I would have thought that was obvious by this point....

Let it never be said that you ever totally wised up.

The part that scares you is that, deep down, you know i'm right.

Let the baby-killing flame war begin!

....oh wait....

That's like saying a democrat would accept a VP candidate who would want to keep us in Iraq.

It ain't gonna happen.

Weaver95: DamnYankees: Weaver95: I would have thought that was obvious by this point....

I don't even know how to respond to that. If we have policies in place which pollute and damage our country, we should try to fix those, no? I don't see how this is any different than any other form of public policy.

That's very similar to the reasoning from pro-life candidates.

There's no real debating whether pollution has negative consequences; it does. On the other hand, there's no way to determine when life begins. So the difference between legislating environmental protection and legislating against abortion is that the former is not based on a specific viewpoint, and the latter is.

People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts. Please try to keep the opinion/fact divide in perspective.

The Republican coalition is disintegrating. Libertarian-types are already out the door, and the increasing strain between the social conservatives and the "pro-business" corporatists is plainly visible. The three groups never really had much in common any way except opposition to welfare-state liberalism.

Trap-Door Spider: McCain just needs to pick Romney and get it over with.

lolololol fap fap over Romney, lololololol

I'm a bit surprised neither one has formally picked a VP yet, especially Obama since his convention is closer to starting.

Honestly I think every pick McCain has is awful, except Huckabee. Huck's personable, can make you forget he's a Bible thumping nutbag, and IS a Bible thumping nutbag. All of the rest of them have glaring negatives that some section of the Republican Party will treat as herpes covered anthrax.

Trap-Door Spider: Jeremy Bates: you're full of shiat. It is obvious to anyone that doesn't have their head up their ass. Only idiots like you think we aren't having any effect at all. You're the same idiots who claim that scientists are making it all up because of all the money involved.


Whoa, take it down a notch there, buddy.

I'm feeling the hate bro...I think he may blow a gasket. Or his Dad.

/lighten up Francis.

3_Butt_Cheeks: I'm a bit surprised neither one has formally picked a VP yet, especially Obama since his convention is closer to starting.

That's what I've been thinking as well. I don't remember it taking this long in 2004 for Kerry, or for Bush and Gore in 2000.

I wonder if McCain is thinking strategically, and use his pick as a response to Obama. As in "OK, he nominated Bayh, so let's pick a woman to try and snatch some of the PUMA vote." As for Obama, I don't know if it would be a good idea to wait too much longer, and I definitely don't think it would be a good idea to have his choice be a surprise at the convention.