Wednesday, August 24, 2011

An Appealing 1%

I'm going to be honest, folks. The only Republican who I would even consider voting for would be Huntsman (and this isn't to say that I'd definitely vote for Obama, either - I might in fact go for an independent option). a) The man believes in science. b) He recognizes the idiocy of not voting to raise the debt-ceiling (he was strongly contra Bachmann in this regard). c) He believes in civil unions. d) He believes in and practices civility. e) He wants to get us the hell out of Afghanistan. f) He has a strong record and reputation of working across the aisle. Yes, he's pro-life and that could be a problem for me (I've consistently been pro-choice). But even there he's willing to make exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother (that, and I don't think that he'd use abortion as a litmus test for court appointees)....I guess what I'm saying here, folks, is that you could definitely vote for a "worser" candidate than this guy........................................................................................................P.S. Yes, the fact that he was one of the eight individuals on that stage who raised their hand to reject a 10:1 cuts to revenue deal is another thing that bothers me. But I cannot believe in reality that he would ever do that. The dude is far too reasonable.

36 comments:

John Myste said...

I would not even consider voting for Huntsman for one crucial reason: The Supreme Court. I want it stacked with partisan liberals to offset the sitting partisan conservatives.

If judges primarily function was to interpret legislation, that would be one thing, but the de facto function of the Supreme Court is legislation.

Beach Bum said...

I agree with John, but in a perfect world, or one at least slightly less fucked up, I believe Huntsman would make a good president.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Let me clarify, gentlemen. If Mr. Huntsman came out and expressly stated that he would ONLY nominate pro-life judges, then, yes, I would at that point fully pull back my consideration. I surely wouldn't want to risk going back to back-alley abortions.

Voltron said...

Straw argument Will.

Repeal of Roe v. Wade would NOT outlaw abortion.

It would only put the matter back into the hands of the states where it belongs.

In some states it would be legal in some states it would not.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I understand, Volt. So, there'd be back-alley abortions in Alabama and Mississippi but not in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

John Myste said...

Will,

For a few minutes, I thought you did not understand Voltron, and I was going to help.

It seems like you do get it, though. States should decide if abortions are legal, NOT the Federal government; just like states should decide if old men can have sex with five year old little girls, NOT the federal government; just like states should decide if we whip and rape our blacks or just ship them back to Africa or keep them, NOT the federal government; just like states should decide if we can eat our children in times of famine, NOT the federal government; just like states should decide if euthanize our elderly once they stop working, NOT the federal government.

Do you finally understand where I and Voltron are coming from?

John Myste said...

To paraphrase my and Voltron's overall philosophy:

It is the federal government’s job to militarily protect the states from foreign nations and from each other; but other than that, they are just 50 little nations, each with its own law. Some are barbaric, some not. Some may be more totalitarian, some not. Some may be theocratic, some not. Some may be backwoods, some not.

Human rights should NOT be enforced by the federal government because some states wish to violate them, and they are promised by the Constitution that the federal government will not prevent them from doing so.

Do you finally understand I and Voltron's overall philosophy?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Your ability to clarify continues to be unparalleled, my man.

w-dervish said...

I doubt the Supreme court would overturn Roe V. Wade even if every justice was conservative.

In any case, I agree with John Myste. Not that I'd vote for Huntsman anyway. He's still a Republican and I'm still a far-left liberal. Barack Obama is way to conservative for me.

Voltron said...

Interesting that John is such a huge supporter of "human rights" yet also supports infanticide...

I get it John, love your brother but murder them babies eh?

John Myste said...

Voltron,

Interesting that John is such a huge supporter of "human rights" yet also supports infanticide...

Look up "Not a True Scotsman fallacy."

That is my rebuttal to your statement.

I get it John, love your brother but murder them babies eh?

You misunderstood things. I have not murdered any babies yet, and I probably won’t if they shut the hell up. Please only charge me after the crime before I commit it. That is sub-zero jeopardy, and is very wrong.

I will not make this thread about abortion, as I have no interest in debating it right now. I do later. I have much interest in a few months when I get time. In fact, just to ensure this does not happen now, for the sake of the discussion I concede to you that abortion is horrible and that it is murder and that it is against God's law and that anyone who commits it should be hanged. Oh, and I still support it, by the way, because I don't want to lose my right to kill babies. Feel better? I support human rights, just not those humans, fetal little bastards!

I will say that I will not murder any innocent babies in the near future, even if God tells me too, as He has commanded other before me to do. I hope that helps. Also, I promise I will not have any abortions, now that I know that it upsets you.

Voltron said...

Yeah yeah, circular logic...

Wouldn't I at least have to be a "True Scotsman" to make that work?

John Myste said...

Votron,

I don't understand how the logic was circular.

You say I am not a true humanitarian if I don't view abortion as an inhumane act. However, none of the prior discussion had anything to do with whether John Myste is a humanitarian.

I will save you some time. He is not. Since this is a point on which we both agree, there is not point in changing the subject to this.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

If a woman misses her period, goes to the doctor and realizes that she's 5 weeks pregnant, aborting that undifferentiated mass of cells isn't murder, in my opinion. And the concept of MANDATING that a woman stay pregnant for an additional 8 months is a chilling proposition that I personally don't want to see revisited. Restrictions at the point of viability are something that perhaps I can be persuaded to. Restrictions prior to that, though, not so much.

John Myste said...

Will,

Now, Will, you haven't factored God's law into the equation. Ah, there is the rub. Consult God and then get back to me.

Voltron said...

What about equal rights?

She didn't get pregnant by herself.
What if the father WANTS the baby?

What if he doesn't and she does?
Why does he have to pay for the next 18 years?

John Myste said...

What if he doesn't and she does?
Why does he have to pay for the next 18 years?


OK, Voltron. You have making so many good points I cannot keep up with them.

You have convinced me: all babies should be aborted unless parents give mutual consent to continue the pregnancy.

John Myste said...

Funny thing, I have been commenting on two sites with multiple comments and both are now discussing abortion.

Is there some news I missed or something?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The way that I see it, gents, if it was men who had to endure the rigors of pregnancy, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

John Myste said...

This is probably narrow-minded, but I think if God did not exist, we also would not be having this discussion.

OK, I am just kidding. I am pretty sure God does not exist, but I think if people weren't mistaken about the existence of God we would not be having this discussion.

The idea that two seconds after copulation, the tissue has a soul with rights that that same tissue, prior to cuddling up to other tissue did not have, and now that tissue mass "deserves" its rights to be protected, is just ridiculous. I have to believe it based on faith, because there is no science that suggests it.

#37927 said...

What if the father WANTS the baby?

Simple he gets to carry it, oh yea physically impossible because God didn't make men that way.

Well then, I guess the mans argument then is with God, for how he set up the system, Volt.

Sorry but that is how it looks to me.

John Myste said...

Volt,

I hope I don't mess up this quote, but according to Will pretty soon we can have virtual abortions, so it won't matter.

I am not sure I got that exactly right, but I tried.

w-dervish said...

Voltron's is the typical Conservative male misogynistic position. He thinks a man's desire for the baby trumps the woman's rights regarding her own body.

A lot of the time what Will finds "chilling" is LOL ridiculous... but on this I agree with him.

BTW Will, you better be careful... this is one issue where I think you could really alienate your buddy Voltron. He, like most conservative males, feel pretty strongly that it is their God given "right" to force a woman to carry a fetus they don't want to term.

dmarks said...

WD: It's is not control of a woman's body that is controversial. It is violence against the body of another person, the child.

There was zero misogynistic content in Voltron's comment.

dmarks said...

"...feel pretty strongly that it is their God given "right" to force a woman to carry a [child] they don't want to term."

The only force involved, WD, is the violence involved in killing the child. Without such acts of violence, the child (who is already a living human being) will continue to survive.

#37927 said...

The only force involved, WD, is the violence of forcing a woman to keep something inside her body she does not want there.

END OF STORY

Fixed it for ya DM

The far right fringe always wants smaller government unless it is something government can force those they want to subjugate to their extreme views, then hello big intrusive right wing government.

w-dervish said...

dmarks, your statement that, "The only force involved is the violence involved in killing the child. Without such acts of violence, the child (who is already a living human being) will continue to survive" is false.

A fetus isn't a child, it is a fetus. A fetus isn't a living human being, it is a fetus. Abortion does not kill a "child", it removes a fetus. Abortion is a legal medical procedure, not "violence".

Finally, there are other means by which a fetus can not "continue to survive". I assume you've heard of miscarriage... Are women who miscarry comitting an act of violence?

I wonder what you believe the penalty for women committing these acts of violence should be?

dmarks is wrong and #37927, who said, "the only force involved is the violence of forcing a woman to keep something inside her body she does not want there" is correct.

w-dervish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...

dmarks (quoting me) ..feel pretty strongly that it is their God given "right" to force a woman to carry a [child] they don't want to term.

You changed my quote by inserting the word "child" for the word I actually used, which was "fetus". They aren't the same thing dmarks.

In actuality, a "fetus" isn't a fetus until, "the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation"...

Until then it's just an embryo, things that fertility clinics regularly flush down the drain. Is flushing an embryo down the drain an "act of violence"?

Should fertility clinics be shut down and their doctors arrested for mass murder?

IMO calling an embryo or a fetus a child is utterly ridiculous... and a way for misogynistic men to control women.

Voltron said...

Fine WD, The woman's right trumps the mans. If she wants to keep the baby and he doesn't let HER pay until the child is 18.

Voltron said...

And personally the way I see it, it's a feminazi way for women to control men.

Voltron said...

"You have convinced me: all babies should be aborted unless parents give mutual consent to continue the pregnancy."

Why shouldn't all babies be allowed to live unless parents give mutual consent to end the pregnancy?

Why do liberals always want to err on the side of death?

Voltron said...

Oh and just so Cliffy doesn't feel I overlooked him...

"The only force involved, WD, is the violence of forcing a woman to keep something inside her body she does not want there.

END OF STORY"
-NOT

Clif, IF she doesn't want that something inside her there is a solution. Don't put something else inside there that may make it so.

An aspirin held tightly between the knees works wonders.

John Myste said...

@Volt,

And personally the way I see it, it's a feminazi way for women to control men.

Identifying yourself with Rush Limbaugh makes everyone disrespect you, even most republicans. You should find another derogatory term for women.


Fine WD, The woman's right trumps the mans. If she wants to keep the baby and he doesn't let HER pay until the child is 18 I am confused. I thought we were concerned with the cell-mass’ right to life. Are we changing our position now and arguing it is about the parents after all?

Why do liberals always want to err on the side of death? Now, you know that is not true. Liberals do not generally support capital punishment as often as conservatives. They often do not support war as much as conservatives. Clearly, they must be choosing abortion for some other reason than erring on the side of death. You may consider your statement refuted.

Clif, IF she doesn't want that something inside her there is a solution. Don't put something else inside there that may make it so. God gave mankind a sexual instinct and made denying it painful. It is not those that have sex who are the assholes. It is God.

Voltron said...

And "Feminazi" is in the Merriam Webster dictionary so at his point its fair use. Also, Rush is certainly not disrespected by anyone except the left.

Why do liberals always want to err on the side of death?

"Now, you know that is not true. Liberals do not generally support capital punishment as often as conservatives."

True, they often do place a higher value on the lives of convicted felons versus the life of an innocent unborn child...

They often do not support war as much as conservatives."

Again True, they generally like to allow situations to build until the cost in lives and fortune are much higher than it might have been if taken care of early...

AND John, can't one have more than one argument for or against an issue?
Equal rights is generally a mantra of the left. The moral argument is more right wing. Both have merit in my opinion. (of course to liberals "equal rights" usually means whatever the oppressed flavor of the day is, ends up with superior rights...)

John Myste said...

Mr. Volt,

"Now, you know that is not true. Liberals do not generally support capital punishment as often as conservatives."

True, they often do place a higher value on the lives of convicted felons versus the life of an innocent unborn child...


Actually, these liberals hold in equal esteem a convicted felon that does not exist and a child that does not exit.

They often do not support war as much as conservatives."

Again True, they generally like to allow situations to build until the cost in lives and fortune are much higher than it might have been if taken care of early...


We need to bomb India. It is an emerging market as well and we should handle them early, like a pre-emptive conservative, as you describe them.

AND John, can't one have more than one argument for or against an issue?

Yes, but it is not needed. You only need the truth and do not need to scrounge up other confirming data. It is a more honest approach.


Equal rights is generally a mantra of the left.

The concept of equal rights is not as egregious as you think.

The moral argument is more right wing.

Both sides are trying to be moral. Since what one side, the right, calls religious morality is invalid if the other side does not agree, the rational side, the left, will not use the argument that his personal morals are all that matters. Each side just disagrees on what the morality is, but the right thinks their interpretation is beyond reproach, because, after all they think it is right; they have faith that it is right; and no rational evidence is needed to show that it is right.

I agree that the God argument is more right wing, but God is not moral by anyone’s standards, including those of the right wing, so this does not really help your case.

Both have merit in my opinion.

If you mean the pro-choice and pro-life positions both have merit, then I COMPLETELY agree with you. I have argued each side with equal passion. Though I ultimately end up on the pro-choice side, my pro-life arguments are far more powerful. While I believe both stances have merit, 99% of arguments presented by both sides are fallacious. I started a post about this, in which I don’t try to prove the legitimacy of the pro-life or pro-choice position. Instead I refute all the arguments used by both sides. I shall finish it one day.

Of course to liberals "equal rights" usually means whatever the oppressed flavor of the day is, ends up with superior rights.

Back when I was an idiot, I used to rail about the Women’s Superior Rights movement. I am now silent about it. The phenomenon you describe happens invariably. Movements for equality become movements for superiority to some of the members of the movement. This does not describe liberals or liberal thought. It is just a sociological phenomenon, and is a legitimate concern that does nothing to refute the idea that equal rights are for the common good. Also, once things settle down after a successful movement, everything usually falls into place (somewhat. It is a variable scale). (but not always. See Rwanda, where the oppressed downtrodden minority kept advancing into they became the oppressors).