Who benefited, who was hurt at last night's debate?

Me! I laughed so hard my side did ache, my heart went pitter pat watching Newt the big fat fake.

Chucky,

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. You have to look at the political spectrum as a circle, not a straight continuum--this is the way political scientists look at it.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Libertarians are to the right of conservatives on economic issues, and to the left of liberals on most social issues. One way to describe them is anarchic.

So, if Moderates were at the 12:00 o'clock position on the circle, and conservatives were at the 3:00 o'clock position, and liberals at the 9:00 o'clock position, Libertarians would be at the 6:00 o'clock position.

WIN FOR NEWT

Ideas. Passion. Statesman on stage. Gracious to opponents -- who could ask for anything more. Winner.

First of all the majority of you in this chat room are not going to vote Republican anyway; so why do you even give a @!$%# what a Republican says in a debate? If you don't like the ideology, don't frikken watch.

BTW: How in the hell do you know "bat @!$%#" is crazy. That is one of the most ignorant lines ever. Must be a white thing.

How in the hell do you know "bat @!$%#" is crazy.

Why, you big silly - I learned the meaning after reading years of your nonsense! ;o)

I see your anger management classes let out early this afternoon!

That's a shame, because you need all the help you can get, Gomer!

The idea of listening to these candidates one more time was too much for me last night. I did follow FR's twitter feed but that's all I could manage.

Jack, good points about Ron Paul. Most of his ideology is too extreme and unrealistic; they would never work but I often agree with him regarding Iraq, etc. It is never going to sit well with the hawks who believe that military options are always the best and only options--never mind the unintended consequences.

ITM...You need to take that Airborne Avatar down and put it away. You most likely didn't make it beyond E-3 since you haven't the slightest idea of the American constitutional ideals you supposedly served for.

Semper Fi

Torpedo I don't think you are even qualified to step to me. The BS you spout just rolls off of my shoulders. I was humping the bush when you were in diapers. By the time you were being titty weaned, I was a seasoned SF soldier. I'm not entertaining your ignorance any further.

Kick Rocks

Stay Alert! Stay Alive!

Well, that's a terribly honest statement, ITM. Most people don't admit to humping Bush; but you put it out there loud and proud like.

AWESOME! and thanks!

The BS you spout just rolls off of my shoulders.

Strange...

If that were true - you wouldn't have felt it necessary to respond, Gomer!

Feisty...Even Gomer was a Marine....You are giving this loon too much credit.He would never make it past his 2nd week in boot camp....Don't believe he ever made it beyond E-2 now.

You are giving this loon too much credit.

You're right TP - I meant 'Goober'! ;o)

Don't believe he ever made it beyond E-2 now.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a weekend warrior who play paintball with his 'squirt' gun!

ITM...In the Corps...Insubordination to a superior officer would result in "Captains Mast." You are addressing a FAR Superior Officer when you are talking to me Army Puss!

ITM,

Everyone watches and studies the competition so that they understand the strengths and weaknesses to better confront and combat them when the time comes.

Clearly you would have learned that from your long career in the military.

Thanks for the wrap up of the debate FR, didn't watch it. I figured there wouldn't be much to see.

Sidenote -

Wow, I knew that the Marines and Army didn't get along, but...

Politics aside, one thing I can say I don't know either of you but, I'll take this opportunity to thank both of you for your service to this country. My Air Force dad and upbringing as an Air Force brat taught me to respect our troops.

Wow, I knew that the Marines and Army didn't get along, but...

Yellowdog,

It has less to do with an inter-service rivalry than belligerence combined with ignorance. TP's comment was directed at a wannabe who likely didn't get above PFC before being busted back down again. I think TP was suggesting ITM would never have made it in the Marines--in boot camp we would have given him a "blanket party" and that would have been the end of him.

Maybe ITM has been watching too many Rat Patrol reruns in his Gomer Pyle Halloween costume...

Chucky ,he might run he said so this morning.He's the twitter that knows the answers.

I was more interested in how Bachmann stood up to Gingrich and didn't let him get away with his BS on Freddie Mac.

Who could have seen that coming?

Roemer is BY FAR the best Republican candidate, and would be, for me, an interesting and intriguing alternative choice. I have seen him on several of the punditry shows, and he is always knowledgeable and reasonable. Plus he seems to be an old-style Republican who actually has a set of principles, which is so rare these days.

But as usual, Republicans opt to act contrary to their own best interests, as well as that of the rest of the country.

Anna Molly:

Buddy Roemer is head and shoulders above the other Republican candidates. He has political experience, but is by no stretch an insider. He is an honest to goodness small businessman. He says what's on his mind.

For today's political crowd he has one major drawback. He is an outspoken opponent of today's corrupt financing of campaigns. For me, his major drawback - and one on which I will not compromise - is that he is pro-life.

The pro-life camp is the clearest example of pure hypocrisy in the world of politics. I am pro-choice and cannot imagine myself ever being otherwise. Pro-choice does not mean one is pro-abortion. It means pro-choice. An election is about a choice. Whether one should turn right or left is a choice. Virtually everything we do in life involves the element of choice.

When someone insists they have a right to tell another person what they can and cannot do with their own body, they have crossed a very bright line. That moves beyond the world of choice and into totalitarianism. People who will do that are very, very dangerous.

Well, you do have a point there, David. I have never heard anyone ask him about that.

It's good to see that someone understands so well the difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. I don't even know what pro-abortion means.

Back to the drawing board, I guess.

Thanks for the heads-up. But he wasn't electable, anyway, so no-harm, no-foul.

Anna - I have to agree with you that the establishment republicans are dead in the head. They just don't get it. There are a whole lot of conservatives that realize this about them. We would love to see a non-establishment conservative republican take the office. That eliminates all but a couple of the current field.

David Walker - I hope you aren't calling me a hypocrite because I am pro-life. There is no hypocracy in my belief that abortion is murder.

Anna Molly,

It's good to see that someone understands so well the difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. I don't even know what pro-abortion means.

You put that very well, as did David.

David, I am also pro choice but I think the issue is far more complicated than telling someone what to do with their own body. We have laws all over the place that dictate what can and cant be done with their own bodies. We have drug laws and even progressives want to regulate food items in order to keep them from getting fat even though that is a choice. The reasons are because we as a society may think that the choices someone makes impacts others or society as a whole. That said I am pro choice but I dont think its as simple as calling it totalitarianism.

I also dont understand the voting for a candidate on one issue in which they are unlikely to make an impact on. For example, most of you would vote for Obama even though he is anti gay marriage laws but they continue to get passed all the time. Single issue voting can lead to disastrous results. Here in Illinois, Quinn won as governor and he has been a disaster over a qualified GOP who was pro life but was and couldnt ever in Illinois propose any laws that would impact somone's ability to have an abortion. On the GOP side, their are voters who would never vote for a democratic candidate who wants reasonable gun control laws even though the impact on someones ability to have a gun is not going to be impacted and they end up voting for a GOP candidate that is so far right that creates its own issues. Single issue voting is unfortunately generally a bad idea.

Excellent post Kirk. I was about to respond to the single issue voting problem, but you stated it so well I'll be content to just say "well done".

Personally, I am pro choice. I find those who say they are pro life to be hypocrites. Harsh, I know, but, every pro lifer I have met are so gun ho to protect the fetus but ignore the welfare of the child that comes from the womb. And if you really are pro life, then you have to be against the death penalty. Pro life is for ALL life, not just a little here from column A and some from column B.

phinephancy - Abortion should not be a method of birth control. There are other methods that prevent pregnancy that are quite effective. First and foremost, is self control. This is the difference in how a liberal thinks and how a conservative thinks. Becoming pregnant involves a degree of responsibility. The act of sex is not involuntary and just about every sane person knows what can happen if you engage in it.

So I can stop you at the pass, rape and incest are an extremely small percentage of ongoing pregnancies. Males that rape, need to be neutered.

Brian, I don't like abortion. I agree it should not be used as birth control. But you do realize, if we stop the number of unwanted pregnancies, we lower the number of abortions? And, women have been having abortions since the beginning of time - I would rather a women have a safe procedure than one "in a back alley"

Did you know that a lot of the new anti-abortion laws also effect birth control? Just a bit of FYI for you.

Brianb:

If you plan to take associate yourself with the term Pro-life, then I would expect you to oppose war, to oppose capital punishment, and denying medical care to those who cannot afford it. Life is life. To take any other position admits to pure hypocrisy.

You may believe there is no hypocrisy in calling abortion murder. I would say there is an inconsistency of belief, which invites the utterly valueless debate regarding "personhood".

Well, on this abortion issue, I will throw a little more gas on this fire. MEN have no right (unless they start having babies themselves) to decide an issue that is a WOMEN'S issue. Guess what, we have brains and a heart and a soul. I think we can decide the issue for ourselves (heck, you nice guys even gave us the right to vote and own property).

Alan, NJ --

So I can stop you at the pass, rape and incest are an extremely small percentage of ongoing pregnancies. Males that rape, need to be neutered.

A nice little speech. But what do you do with the pregnancies they cause?

Punish the victim? For a lifetime?

Abortion should not be a method of birth control.

Well, duh. Either produce one example of a woman who uses abortion as birth control or swallow this red herring.

This is the difference in how a liberal thinks and how a conservative thinks. Becoming pregnant involves a degree of responsibility.

Nonsense. You are trying to lay off all the "responsibility" onto women, and somehow you've deluded yourself into thinking that only conservative women are responsible.

I submit to you that, being so brainwashed by your misguided ideology, they're more likely NOT to be responsible.

And to think that conservative women never have abortions is just plain delusional.

The act of sex is not involuntary and just about every sane person knows what can happen if you engage in it.

One would hope that this includes men, but that doesn't seem to factor into YOUR thinking. In your world, only the woman needs to worry about it.

And phinephancy makes an excellent point about birth control.

So, if you conservative boys get your way, you're either going to be very lonely, or you're going to be very sorry.

David talks about choices. That might just be the unintended consequence of yours.

Kirk:

For the life of me, I don't know what possesses me to open your posts. Are you truly unable to grasp that the pro-choice stance touches on virtually every aspect of our lives? The pro-choice position is NOT the antithesis of the pro-life position. That would be the anti-life position. You have very neatly demonstrated the reason I avoid engaging you in debate. You not only want to frame the debate, but define the words. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Noah Webster has already done that. I'm going with Noah.

You have decided that pro-choice is about a single issue. It is not. It is about every issue. We do not live in a world of absolutes and compromise is necessary. The law defines where your freedom ends and mine begins. Therein lies the rub. Pro-lifers want to patrol a woman's vagina. BS! That is in fact, the SINGLE issue. They aren't about life. They're about control.

Anna Molly

Don't you love it when men tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies? Maybe we should have the right to enact laws about their peckers!

Exactly, Phinephancy,

They aren't ProLife, they are ProBirth. And that's hypocrisy, right there.

phinephancy:

Actually, in my earlier years, I loved it when women told me what I could do with their bodies. Oh wait, maybe I missed your meaning.

David,

You are a baaaad boy! LOL

Phinephancy, I guarantee if you started regulating our wangdoodles, the pro-life movement would collapse. It is a very hypocritical assault on individual sovereignty to tell a person what they can and cannot do with their own body.

It is a very hypocritical assault on individual sovereignty to tell a person what they can and cannot do with their own body.

Oh, goodness, Chucky. Don't you know irony when it's staring you in the face?

Kirk,

It looks like you need to take this one premise at a time. Read what Anna Molly wrote below. Absorb it. When you understand what she meant by it, then come back and will move on to the next premise.

I don't even know what pro-abortion means.

David,

in my earlier years

And you would have us believe--what?

You ain't that old, fella!

Anna - I'm not placing responsibility only on women. I can't help it that women were created to be the carriers of our species. I wasn't involved in that decision so don't lay it on my doorstep that I'm telling you what to do with your body. When you have an abortion, you are not killing YOUR body, you are killing the body of another human being.

So for all the semantics you liberals want to throw out there, it's another human being you are killing that has nothing to do with killing anything on your body, For all I care, you can drive nails into your hands but when you have an abortion, you are killing a defenseless human.

David - I am against capital punishment. I am against murder. I am not against war when it comes to defending the life of the people that live here. I am against unnecessary wars that are political posturing. We should not start any war without cause. I do believe in self-defense and if that involves taking the life of someone that is trying to do you harm, that is not hypocritical. If someone picks a fight with me, I will try to pursuade them to not let me hurt them, but if I am left with no choice, they will be toast. That's not against life, no matter how you may want to try to trap me into the corner. Pro life when it comes to abortion is a total different matter. I believe in the defense of the one that can't speak for themselves. There's a vast difference.

Well, if you men want to outlaw abortion, you better at the same time enact a law that mandate a man's whoopie stick has to be at least 10 inches long! Or else, snip, snip.

David, ever since you made light of the Penn State tragedy to try and make a point with me, I dont understand why I bother with you either but I do. That said, your extension of the pro live vs pro choice debate shows why its not so simple as to make it a single issue. By extension, anti smoking laws, laws that regulate what we can eat or ingest are personal choices that also impact a variety of society issues many of which are just as dangerour, costly etc. Abortion may be a hot botton issue for you and others that you put on a greater pedestal but the attempt to make it larger than a single issue voting referendum on a candidate falls short of its mark. That said you ignored the real substance of my post which is that you continue to support Obama over single issue items that you probably disagree with such as anti gay marriage laws, continuation of rendition (which allows torture), but you dont create a referendum on Obama for those. My point was you are using it as a means of discarding Roemer when you dont hold democratic candidates or presidents to that same standard

Sorry Jack, I get a bit carried away when folks think they have some sort of right to regulate the body of another. Drives me nucking futs!

Not that I'd ever considering voting for her but where's the Bachmann, who stood toe to toe and didn't back down from Gingrich and the others last night, been during the rest of the debates?

Brian and Kirk,

I think the fundamental problem is that neither of you know how to read. I'm not going to waste my time pointing out what you are missing, but if you would go back to the beginning and very carefully read what David and Anna Molly wrote, you would see that you're chasing the wrong hares. It's almost as if you wish they had said one thing so you could argue about it, when in fact they said quite another--you in particular, Kirk. BB is beyond hope with that idiotic, "I can't help it that women were created to be the carriers of our species." Good grief!

Let me ask you this question David - Let's say your mother wanted to have an abortion. Let's say I pursuaded her not to have that abortion and she named her son David. Wouldn't you be a little greatful that you were given the chance to experience this wonderful thing called life?

Ohh. . . Ohh. . . Ohh. . . I think I'm just going to hang up the phone now.

Good-bye, Brian. Forever, I hope.

Alan,

So for all the semantics you liberals want to throw out there, it's another human being you are killing that has nothing to do with killing anything on your body, For all I care, you can drive nails into your hands but when you have an abortion, you are killing a defenseless human.

Once again and for the last time, liberals are not PRO-abortion. WE'RE the ones who believe it is better to prevent the pregnancy in the first place, than to be placed in the position of having to make that choice.

And we're the ones who know very well, especially by watching hypocritical conservatives males, that it's very hard to regulate the wangdoodle.

I do not "promote" abortion, and in my life I have taken great care to exercise the personal "responsibility" that you seem to believe only conservative women would understand. I have never had an abortion. I have passed along my own personal responsibility to my daughter.

So, why don't YOU get off YOUR high horse and stop the phony-baloney morality lecture? While I have never had an unintended pregnancy myself, I do know of several such cases -- one or two of them first hand -- involving conservatively raised girls who fell into tragedies because they were not given the tools or the knowledge to protect themselves from the unregulated wangdoodle, and when they were confronted with the natural consequences of aforesaid wangdoodle, they were afraid to tell anyone about it.

A dead newborn is just as dead as a dead fetus, Alan.

If prohibition taught us anything, it should have been this: There are some things you can control, and some things you can't.

Repression hurts, and abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.

Listening to this is giving me a splitting headache. Brian, you just don't get it. What a woman does with her own body (and trust me, women have been having abortions ever since the could figure out a way) is HER business. What her choice is, well that is between her and her conscience or God or whatever. Men, who do not take the risk in childbirth, have no right or say in it.

And I am not kidding about laws for men. Goose/gander.

What is it about you "pro life" men, anyways? Jealous?

Jack - it's called absurdity. I realize you probably can't recognze it, but that's exactly what it is... it's as absurd as someone saying that I want to tell another what to do with their body. It always falls back to that baseline logic that isn't the truth at all. It's a deflection because when it all boils down past all the arguments and debate, when an abortion occurs, a human has lost his/her life.

Okay, Brian, here's the deal, you get a woman pregnant, she doesn't want to be pregnant and is forced to have the child, well, you - Daddy dear, get to go to prison for a mandatory 18 years and you are castrated. How's that sound to you? Sounds like a fair trade to me. (And I mean surgically castrated - as in no more Mr. Happy)

phinephancy - Anna - Jack, et al. I am against it for 2 reasons and I will be glad to share those reasons with you. One, an abortion takes away a life. No matter how you slice it a child is destroyed... literally. The second reason is personal. My niece had an abortion. She did it with full conscious thought. A few months after the abortion she started having nightmares. Not every night at first, but they started happening. The frequency of those nightmares increased. She didn't want to go to sleep due to the fear of the nightmares. It got so bad, she became suicidal. She didn't understand what was happening to her. She went to counciling because the thoughts of suicide were getting stronger and stronger. She is a beautiful sweet and wonderful girl who discovered she made a mistake through psychiatric counciling and many strong anti-depressants. She now lives with a strong desire to have the child she aborted, but only after some really close calls and lots of love from her family and a very wise and intelligent psychiatrist worked it out of her.

No one told her what to do with her body... but she now lives with regrets that have shaped her life forever. If you think for a moment that having an abortion costs nothing... you'd understand why I concern myself with it and why I am so against it.

Does that make me a hypocrite?

phinephancy - your analogy wouldn't fly with me. First I wouldn't get a woman pregnant who didn't want to have children in the first place because I would have never married a woman that didn't want to have children. See, I do know what personal responsibility is all about. I do know how to control Mr. Happy. Maybe the men in your life don't know how to control their impulses because liberals think below the waist. I happen to be a little more cerebral.

And nowhere in the discussion do we address the legislation of the pregnancy as a result of RAPE or INCEST where the CHOICE wasn't even remotely that of the woman.

And therein lies the 'rub'. I wonder if we started castrating rapists if that would reduce the number of rapes? Or would that be extremism to the pro wangdoodle population? I mean you can't really have an 'accidental' rape now can you?

What a small, rigid, perfect little world BB inhabits!

Kind of sad, when you think about it!

Pro-choice, as David Walker put it, does not mean pro-abortion. I've posted before that most women do not make such decisions lightly. Pro-lifers who discuss it as "birth control" or as if there's no emotional trauma for women who opt to have an abortion obviously do not comprehend the strong, biological draw women have toward motherhood. While I have read that comment about abortion being used as birth control, those who make it never provide the statistics to substantiate it.

If we want fewer abortions, then teaching something beyond abstinence only to teenagers is essential; teaching them family planning and birth control methods. It is naive to think that teaching teenagers with raging hormones to abstain will prevent unwanted, teenage pregnancies. It is equally naive to think that outlawing abortion will stop abortion. No, it will not; it will merely send women to the back alleys and the quacks, back to unsanitary conditions, and possible death.

In addition to that, perhaps the anti-abortion crowd would care to explain why Congressional Republicans tried and continue to try to defund Planned Parenthood--the provider where young, poor, disadvantaged teenagers and women are able to obtain birth control because, guess what, they don't want to get pregnant and can't afford to get pregnant and they don't want an abortion.

It was reported yesterday that nearly 1 in 2 Americans live at or below the poverty level. Many of these are poor women and girls who cannot afford health insurance, cannot afford to buy birth control pills and there are the GOP Legislators trying to defund the place where they can go to prevent getting pregnant. Not only that, it is an assault on the health of these women because Planned Parenthood provides preventive cancer screenings not just birth control and they also provide services to poor men including cancer screenings. Essentially, the GOP and the rabid anti-abortion crowd rant about abortions yet are unwilling to prevent them. Now that's hypocrisy at its finest.

In addition to restricting abortion, we have republicans trying to legislate birth control; writing bans on birth control pills and other methods of prevention. Small government conservatives my foot--these are big, intrusive government yahoos who would like nothing better than to revert to the days when women had no voice in government let alone at home, where women "obeyed" and kept quiet--they were simply "property" to be used and abused.

BrianB:

Stop with the what-if's. If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass. To answer your question, I can only say, I don't remember having any objections whatsoever to anything prior to my birth.

Liberal and semantics? Oh yeah, there's a whole lot of twisting going on. Pro - Anti. Yup, all kinds of wiggle room there.

I note you seemed to have missed the question of denying health care to those who cannot afford it.

Kirk:

I never made light of the Penn State issue. Never. I made a point. As always, it was lost on you.

Here's another little gem. Rick Perry has been bragging that he shut down enough Planned Parenthood storefronts to deny health care to literally hundreds of thousands of poor women in Texas. You can't hardly beat that for someone who claims to be pro-life, can you?

Fact: Planned Parenthood is the number one provider of health care to women in the country.

Fact: Not one single federal dollar foes to fund abortions.

Fact: Planned Parenthood - this is a tough one to understand - is about planned parenthood. It is not an abortion mill.

Fact: Women have been having abortions since time immemorial.

Fact: Abstinence only, when practiced, is 100% effective. Most people do not abstain. Gosh!

Fact: If men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every corner.

I understood the point completely. It was an attempt to be funny at my expense as a cheap shot that was beyond civil bounds that certainly made light of the Penn State issue. No doubt about that. The problem is that you want to be the wise one with the voice of reason and you just cant stand when your attempts to seem reasonable why shilling for Obama at all costs is called out. At least others like Fiesty leave no doubt that they wear heavy rose colored glasses and wouldnt understand objective if it smacked them in the face. Just wear your colors proudly.

David Walker,

When someone insists they have a right to tell another person what they can and cannot do with their own body, they have crossed a very bright line.

So does this mean that you do NOT accept the mandate of the Obama Care?

Brianb --

No one told her what to do with her body... but she now lives with regrets that have shaped her life forever. If you think for a moment that having an abortion costs nothing... you'd understand why I concern myself with it and why I am so against it.

Stop making things up. No one ever said that abortion costs nothing, least of all me.

Which is exactly why LIBERALS favor the availability of birth control. Capice?

You of all people ought to understand that.

Maybe your niece should have been taught how to use it, and to make her partner use it.

Or does that violate your high-fallutin' phony baloney morality, too?

That being said, I am very sorry to hear about what your niece suffered. I assume that she didn't have the support she needed prior to making her decision, maybe because the father was irresponsible, and maybe because she felt she could not tell her family.

Now, why would that be the case, Brianb? I'm pretty sure, you see, that if my own LIBERAL daughter ever got into that kind of trouble, she would tell me about it, and know that I would be there to help, and not to judge her.

In any event, your niece may actually have been lucky. My own cousin, being Catholic, was forced to marry the abusive father of the child. Nobody lived happily ever after there, either, and I'm pretty sure regrets and nightmares were involved. In the cases I mentioned up above, the mother(s) were driven to such shame and desperation that they hid their pregnancies from their religiously repressive parents, gave birth alone and afraid in dangerous conditions, and then abandoned their newborn children to die. One of them was in my high school class.

Imagine how that felt, Brianb. Those young girls ended up where they began -- alone -- except they were in prison. While daddy got off scott free.

I don't need to hear anymore from you, Brian. You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

Maybe the men in your life don't know how to control their impulses because liberals think below the waist. I happen to be a little more cerebral.

Yes, I see. Like John Ensign, or Newt Gingrich, or anyone of many conservative men who have always held their below the waist above the fray.

You're simply incapable of seeing the forest through the trees.

BrianB,

So can you tell me by letter of the law, when does life begin? Not your definition, not your opinion, but the by the letter of the law. Maybe Anna Molly can help on this one. Because I hate to hear the words "murder" come from a pro-anti-abortion person. Because if it is murder, shouldn't all of these women be put in jail.

I haven't read where life begins, especially in our law books, so hopefully Anna Molly will know. Maybe our Supreme Court should clarify the position. Does life start at conception, heartbeat, or birth? We don't seem to celebrate our conception day, nor do we celebrate our heartbeat day, we right now only celebrate our birthday.

Because if it is murder, shouldn't all of these women be put in jail.

Including Brian's niece, Big Bear. At least, according to him.

So can you tell me by letter of the law, when does life begin? Not your definition, not your opinion, but the by the letter of the law. Maybe Anna Molly can help on this one.

I can't answer that, and I don't try. There is no definitive scientific answer, as far as I know. The rest is purely a matter of religion, and that, in turn, is purely a personal, not a state, matter.

If pro-choice is wrong, then those who choose will pay the ultimate consequences. The innocent children will not. If there's a heaven, they're already there.

Incidentally, I first felt my own daughter's flutterings on my own birthday. I'll never forget that.

Thanks Anna,

I just get tired of hearing the word "murder" by all anti-abortion people. This is a personal ordeal, but for them to try and control each woman's right, is wrong. Until it is ruled on by a court system, and since abortion is legal in this country, I don't want to hear those anti-abortion nut jobs calling it "murder". I feel that women are a lot safer having doctors perform the necessary procedure, rather than some back woods hick. At least they get medical care with a doctor.

Again Thanks,

You're welcome, Big Bear. All blessings of the season to your and your family.

PS. Feisty, I think you're using the word 'rigid' liberally,...more like flacid,...just sayin'.

Leave it to you to catch that Clara! lol

Thanks!

Big Bear:

When life began is not a legal question. It is a question to which we will most likely never have an answer. Some time in the very distant past, life began. How, where, when, why - no one knows. Most likely it began only one time.

From that day until the present, life - at least what we call life - has continued. Whether you like the notion of evolution, whether you like the notion of a creation by a creator, whether you like the notion that a creator chose evolution itself to continue life - the fact remains, life, in all likelihood, began only once. All living things descend from a single life. Life does not begin at conception. It does not begin with a heartbeat. It does not begin at birth. All those events are simply another manifestation of a single life that began long ago. That is not an opinion. That is not the law. That is a scientific fact.

The idea that abortion is murder is utterly ridiculous. Spermatazoa and ova are living cells - they are life itself. When the two meet, a new life is not created, but rather a continuation of life that shares characteristics courtesy of a fantastic process, whether called magic or miracle, which results in the Big Bears and the Anna Mollys that populate the universe. Life is to be found in at the deepest points of the ocean, floating in the air, and rooted in earth. Given the infinite stretch of the universe, it may even be that there is life elsewhere.

That said, few things piss me off more than the sanctimonious idiots who seem to believe that abortion is taken lightly. As Anna Molly writes, it would be a wonderful thing if abortion were no longer an issue. Yes, there really are women who treat abortion as simply another method of birth control, but they are hardly significant in number. However, from my experience, women who have made this choice have given their decision a great deal of thought. I do not know one who has forgotten the experience.

I have met very few truly honorable pro-lifers. They have earned my deepest respect. However, I have found the vast majority who proclaim themselves to be pro-life are outright hypocrites. I hold them in utter contempt.

Big Bear:

Missed your question. What mandate in ACA, which by the way is not called Obama Care?

My Jaguars were a barrel of laughs last night!

my dyslexia kicked in--at first I thought the title was Debate Warp.

I like Warped Debate myself.

Yes, but were the debates warped or the debaters warped? (The egg/chicken thing)

That's a good question phine. I'm going with the Debaters.

Spot on, dangerfield. Fine analysis.

As Jon Huntsman appears unelectable (at this point at least, who knows..) I am preparing myself for possibly voting for Mr. Obama.

I would argue that their quest for ideological purity is very skewed. One of the moderators last night effectively said that Ron Paul was running to the left of Obama on Iran, which brings up the differences between classical conservatism vs. neo-conservatism. Paul's is actually a classic non-interventionist conservative position. It should be argued Paul is running to the right of the other candidates on this issue. Only in modern American politics could things be so topsy-turvy.

Your analysis fails, in that 1968 did not have an unqualified failure as incumbent President, whose economic policies tanked the economy, with approval ratings in the basement.

The similiarity to 1968 is that the radical Occupy Wall Street loons will cause chaos in the streets, tarnishing the Democratic Party.

Chucky,

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. You have to look at the political spectrum as a circle, not a straight continuum--this is the way political scientists look at it.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Libertarians are to the right of conservatives on economic issues, and to the left of liberals on most social issues. One way to describe them is anarchic.

So, if Moderates were at the 12:00 o'clock position on the circle, and conservatives were at the 3:00 o'clock position, and liberals at the 9:00 o'clock position, Libertarians would be at the 6:00 o'clock position.

Jack, your analysis is spot on for "right" Libertarians, or anarcho-capitalists, but where would you place the "left" Libertarians, the anarcho-socialists?

Also, whether Republican or Libertarian, non-interventionism is classical conservatism.

where would you place the "left" Libertarians, the anarcho-socialists?

6:00 o'clock; same place as the anarcho-capitalists.

non-interventionism is classical conservatism

No ideology is pure. But I would argue that many Libertarians take non-interventionism to an extreme unparalleled.

Also, sorry for the double post. Don't know what the hell is going on with the Vine. Beginning about a week ago, every third or fourth post I try to submit encounters a "spam detector", which forces me to type in nearly indecipherable words, and then submit them for clearance to prove that I am who I say I am. Anyone else having this problem?

So Bob,

Can you provide your analysis? Simply disputing mine and lashing out at your usual bogeymen falls flat on every count. What is the difference between the Mitt and anyone but Mitt factions in the Republican party.

Why do staunch conservatives view Mitt as no different from the President, when liberals see huge differences?

Are you supporting Mitt, Newton or someone else and why?

THAT'S IT!! Jack you got it... we are all in different time zones.... No wonder we can't agree on what time it is. Actually your clock analogy is exactly correct. Laughler has it as a half circle, but the clock works as well to describe the degrees an individual falls into. I'm somewhere around 2:30 although a political quiz I took a few years ago said I was at 6:00. I'm definitely not a Libertarian, nor a republican.

It's not Laughler... sorry, my mistake it's Laffer Curve - momentary lapse of reason. Hey! That was Pink Floyd, wasn't it? (smile)

@Jack

Missed you on the other thread. Bob Graham was a democrat. Not only the Florida governor, but was our senator for a while.

@Bob

Nobody But Obama

I like the circle analogy, it's very effective for illustrating how different political viewpoints compare. But depending on the issue, I could be at 12, 3, 6, or 9 (or more likely all spots in between). Guess you could say I'm running around in circles.

Guess you could say I'm running around in circles.

Ahh, that explains it! ;-)

The 'clock' analogy makes me think of Dr. Pepper. 10-2-4

Bob? lol

Where are you? Your opinion is actually being SOLICITED and you run away? What gives?

Actually, the Democrat favorite to face the president would be the Grinch, but Mittney is an acceptable alternative.

The candidate that would give him the hardest time, Paul.

The President would easily beat either the Grinch or Mittney, and would thank Ron Paul supporters for the easy victory.

The Republicans have a very good opportunity to unseat a sitting president, if they chose correctly. But, I fear that as usual, they will shoot themselves in the foot, just like they did last election.

To answer the question on why conservatives refuse to get behind Mittney, might have something to do with the fact that he very openly and loudly declared himself a "Progressive" and that Liberal Democrats should not fear voting for him in the governors race some years ago. The video of it is floating around the web and commonly available.

Conservatives will never forgive him for it. Anyone that supports him is not a conservative.

He's a republican in Drag..... and always will be.

Steve, I have pointed that out myself. I guess the GOP doesn't like to count Nebraska folks as part of the party - those RINO's have the nerve to worry about clean water! :)

Even further Steve, I believe the acquifer is water supply for 5/6 States, not just Nebraska.

But on a slightly differently slant, this is arguement I love. The GOP continually trumpets the notion that "...Government doesn't create jobs...", yet they continue to "use" the pipeline as a talking point for thousands of jobs.

My point, you can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't claim that government can hault jobs from being created (as is alleged in this case), but claim that government doesn't create jobs either. If the government can be blamed 100% for stopping "jobs from being created", it must also be credited with "creating" those same jobs.

Good point Allen. I was going to mention that about the other states too, I just forgot. It is important to note that we are not the only state affected by the potential damage a pipeline could cause. I am always amazed at a party that claims "big government is not the solution", but has no problem stepping into state and personal business when it comes to sexual orientation, giving birth, etc., etc.

By the way, hello fellow Omahan!

Steve Yo and Allen Omaha

Good points, have posted some of the same issues recently about the potential acquifer and the wildlife damage. By the way grew up in Omaha, my dad was stationed at Offutt AFB. I used to love going to the eastern Sandhills along the Platte River and watch the birds migrating in the fall - an awesome site.

________________

• Largest spring migration of Sandhill Cranes in the world, more than 500,000, with annual visits by the only wild population of the highly endangered Whooping Cranes numbering less than 200 individual birds.
• More than 10 million waterfowl migrate through Nebraska annually with many species nesting within the state. This includes Trumpeter Swans, White Pelicans, and a diverse variety of ducks and geese.
• At least 36 species of shorebirds travel through the state during their migration between the tropics and the Arctic Circle. Many species find suitable nesting sites along the thousands of miles of shorelines of scenic rivers, lakes, prairie potholes, wetlands and wet meadows. This includes several endangered species such as the Interior Least Tern and Piping Plover.
• The Missouri River Valley is a major migration route for eagles, hawks, and geese, with tens of thousands of these birds traveling the river corridor each year. Many woodland birds such as warblers and tanagers use this flyway.
_____________________________

Allen - Omaha

But on a slightly differently slant, this is arguement I love. The GOP continually trumpets the notion that "...Government doesn't create jobs..."

And they are wrong, government CAN create jobs, in fact Obama wanted to create thousands of new jobs in AIFA...... (American Infrastructure Financing Agency) Part of his "Jobs" bill that just HAD to be passed.

My point, you can't have your cake and eat it to.

Neither can you..

You can't claim that government can hault jobs from being created (as is alleged in this case),

Actually yes we can.

but claim that government doesn't create jobs either.

You are right, no we cant as shown above.

If the government can be blamed 100% for stopping "jobs from being created", it must also be credited with "creating" those same jobs.

I guess that what you are saying is that if the EPA allows a project to go thru, a project that someone else created long before it got to the EPA, in your world, the EPA should get credit for creating the project?

Of course Not!

They don't get credit for creating the project, and therefore don't get credit for creating the jobs that the project brings. They can get credit for allowing the project to proceed to the point of the jobs becoming a reality, or they can get credit for the project not being allowed to proceed therefore the jobs don't get created.

So, common sense, the EPA can be credited with destroying a job creation opportunity, (destroying jobs) but cannot be credited with the creation of those jobs just by solely approving a project where the jobs are already planned.

I cannot believe that I actually had to explain this...

Concerned Citizen: "you'll see all sorts of republican ideologues"

You mention GOP ideologues??

Obama is the most ideological, divisive President in modern times. Just ask Democrats like Dennis Cardoza from California. He calls Obama "alienating" and not willing to work with people on either side of the aisle.

They the libs must have those independents in the swing states to survive or it is 2010 again:)

hey Progressive,

Stop the name calling, it only shows your lack of a good argument.

Besides, did you forget that the President made a plea for people to stop the name calling. Obama would be very disappointed in you.

LOL

The louder the pig squeals i.e.Progressive, the more they are in pain. Polls like the one you just posted are causing tremendous pain to the left of center.