Palin v. Paul by Niki2

Palin/Paul.....10% tops.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:27 AM

Palin is no Paul......not even close

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:28 AM

Where's Mary?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Holy shit, RiverKanegirl...I actually agree with you! Will wonders never cease...

Who's Mary?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:31 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Paul and Palin have very little in common, I think. I certainly do not ever see them occupying the same ticket. It is obvious to anyone of a fiscally conservative bent that we overspend on military matters, and that our wars are costly to the American people without a consummate return on the investment. Palin continuously shows an aggressive, interventionist mindset, while Paul believes in nonaggression and isolationist principles in matters of war. (Trade with everyone, War with no-one would be his motto.) Paul does not even like having treaties with other nations that might require us to use force on their behalf.

I think it is wise of Paul to seek allies in the Democratic party, where there is (or should be) strong agreements on points of military spending and personal liberty. A great irony is that his ideas have gained more productive traction amongst liberals than with conservatives.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:33 AM

the original legendary folk trio :

Palin, Paul, & Mary - The New Christy Folksters:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:56 AM

?

I don't know who your Mary is. Palin is religious. I wasn't aware Paul was particularly outspoken about his religious beliefs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
?

I don't know who your Mary is. Palin is religious. I wasn't aware Paul was particularly outspoken about his religious beliefs.

He is religious he just does not let it interfere with his libertarian ideologue. He feels it is a personal belief and has no place in politics.......

That is Whitman google California

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:19 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I wasn't aware Paul was particularly outspoken about his religious beliefs."

Hello,

He is very religious, and it sometimes conflicts with his political stances. For instance, he is against abortion. However, he tends to not campaign on the platform of overturning Roe v Wade (even though he believes the Feds should leave that decision to the States.) While it can be found amongst his list of positions, he never really goes around emphasizing it. Bigger fish to fry, I suspect.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:23 AM

It's Mary Landrieu from Louisiana. I just think she's a real cutie.

Unfortunately, she learned politics from her father Landru. Later she had her name cleverly misspelled, and it stuck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:23 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
...he tends to not campaign on the platform of overturning Roe v Wade (even though he believes the Feds should leave that decision to the States.)

It's odd; why don't any of these supposed "libertarians" ever just leave the decision to the woman facing the choice of whether or not to have a child?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"It's odd; why don't any of these supposed "libertarians" ever just leave the decision to the woman facing the choice of whether or not to have a child?"

Hello,

Some of these supposed "libertarians" do. :-)

I think you'll find, though, that no man is the perfect avatar of supposed party values. In fact, if I agree with more than 75% of a political position, I look at myself with skepticism and wonder what is wrong with me. Usually if I can agree with 50% of what a political party says, that's pretty good.

I imagine the same is true of most folks. I'm not surprised (though I am occasionally dismayed) to see liberty-limiting libertarians, spendy conservatives, and rights-reducing liberals.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:34 AM

Palin is for sale, Ron Paul should buy her and tell her what to think. She's probably worth some votes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:42 AM

Ooh, I like that, the only problem is if someone offers her more money afterward.

But I guess you might as well get her on your side for as long as she's willing, otherwise she's going to be working against you. Sarah's out for Sarah.

Quote:
He is very religious, and it sometimes conflicts with his political stances. For instance, he is against abortion. However, he tends to not campaign on the platform of overturning Roe v Wade (even though he believes the Feds should leave that decision to the States.) While it can be found amongst his list of positions, he never really goes around emphasizing it. Bigger fish to fry, I suspect.

I guess I could live with that. No one would be particularly happy, which must mean it's a reasonable compromise. The downside is more mothers will be trying this on themselves (often life-risking), but maybe this is something tragic that will always be around, like poverty and starvation.

At least it would obviate the need for loophole laws, like vaginal ultrasounds for rape victims. Which are possibly just needlessly cruel considering how often would be mothers getting abortions are under some kind of distress. And the less laws and more elegant the system, probably the better, I think.

And there aren't many states that would outlaw for medical reasons, or because of rape. I personally would think the ones that would are pretty sucky states, but maybe that should be decided by the people on a local level.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:46 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT, Byte:

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:56 AM

Ron Paul believes the federal government should be taken out of the abortion debate. As a strict constitutionalist he feels it is a state issue.

Personally he finds the whole debate absurd. He is pro-life and believes life starts at conception. He points out the hypocrisy of the whole debate by pointing out... that if he harms a fetus in his practice(he's an OGBYN) he is sued because the laws look to the fetus as a "person". At the same time someone can go in with a day left in the third-term and demand an abortion as if the fetus is not a person. He believes that each state should define what a fetus is and equalize the laws accordingly. He also uses that someone who kills a pregnant women is prosecuted for two homicides. I believe he is correct. Let the scientists define when life begins and then make the laws accordingly...Can't have it both ways...He is spot on. He believes that you can not have liberty when any person(even parents) can kill another.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:04 AM

Well, since we're going to the level of ridiculous with it... okayyy.

Yes, with the condition that Ron gets a large nerf bat and gets to whomp her on the head with it every time she says something stupid.

We could have a betting pool on how long it takes to cause concussion, imma bet less than a week.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:44 AM

TRAVELER

Paul will not have anything to due with her.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 8, 2010 1:40 PM

I don't suspect RTL is only a libertarian question, it also depends on your views on life. I suspect ultimately this is a state's rights issue since it's way out of the purview of defending the nation. (Except in a pirate newsy way, but that would fall on the other side. It's an interesting constitutional question.)

I second the move for a nerf bat.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 4:57 AM

A bit long but they are side by side discussing tea party

The difference is apparent

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 4:57 AM

A bit long but they are side by side discussing tea party

The difference is apparent

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 5:44 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

To begin with, even scientists can’t decide when life starts. Second, if every state decided, only people rich enough to cross state lines could get abortions. Third, in the case of rape or incest, or the life of the mother, as dear Angle wants, I’m not willing to leave it up to “God’s intercession” and pray they can make “lemonade out of a lemon situation”, thank you. I have a bit more compassion than that. Fourth; get the government out of women’s bodies! You can’t have it both ways.

My mother had to have an abortion back in the days they were illegal. They screwed her up, so as a result she had three (or four, depending on which day you asked her) miscarriages before she had me, cesarean, and they told her she could have no more children (wait for it...). I don't want to see that done to anyone ever again.

I believe in the rights of those already born--I'd have more sympathy for RTLers if they adopted and cared about all those "lives" they want brought into the world AFTER they were born...until then, they got nothin' to say to me. It's real easy (especially for a male) to say abortion is murder...it's a helluvalot harder to make that a principle in your life and ACT on it (rather than carrying around signs and killing abortion doctors!).

Frem...damn, and here I thought the way she is WAS from brain damage....have to look at that again... But I it would shut her up, I’m in on the nerf bat. Anything to shut that yap up and get her off the damned news. I have to change channels too often.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 5:52 AM

Scientist do know when life starts...at conception. It's in the definition.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 10:55 AM

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 9, 2010 11:21 AM

Yes, that's our anthem ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 8:13 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh gawd, Frem, someone put that up before and I just LOVED it! Giggled all the way thru...did it again this time, too. Thanx. Python's Meaning of Life, eh? Another one I'll have to rent.

Ironic as hell, isn't it, that being sung by children in an orphanage? Where are you RTLers when it comes to adoption? Helping out the mother? That's the thing I hate most; the minute that little baby is born, you lose interest!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 9:11 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Didn't see this earlier.

Actually, I'm surprised our government doesn't have a strong orphanage system, since it would allow children to be indoctrinated efficiently and completely, and possibly supply all needed volunteers to our military.

Not that I advocate it, but I'm surprised it hasn't happened.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 11:39 AM

Anthony, that's cause there ARE people who remember the last time that was tried, and it's awful enough I will give you only two words, and leave it up to you whether or not your heart can take it, or how far to dig into it.

Ceausescu's children.

THAT, is the end result of the policies the american right wishes to make a reality, and having seen the tail end of that reality in ways so horrible it cannot be put into words...

There's no way in hell I will not stand against it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Scientist do know when life starts...at conception. It's in the definition.

Aren't the sperm alive BEFORE conception?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 12:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Oh gawd, Frem, someone put that up before and I just LOVED it! Giggled all the way thru...did it again this time, too. Thanx. Python's Meaning of Life, eh? Another one I'll have to rent.

Ironic as hell, isn't it, that being sung by children in an orphanage? Where are you RTLers when it comes to adoption? Helping out the mother? That's the thing I hate most; the minute that little baby is born, you lose interest!

That plank of the RTL platform is called "Love the Fetus; Hate the Child".

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 12:34 PM

Niki: No, I understood all that, and it's regrettable, but on the other hand, people wouldn't be so tense about the whole thing, maybe, and start leaving each other the hell alone about whatever choices they make. Instead of killing would be mothers and doctors.

Anything that does not cause adult people to try to kill other adult people is an idea that may warrant consideration. Jury is still out for me on foetuses and whether or not I should put them in the same category as people who have been born. Some days I think yes, some days I think no. AR has this argument that I've always liked, if a driver is responsible for a car wreck where they injure someone else, should they be forced to donate organs to save the other person's life? I mean, clearly it's an unfortunate thing to have done, putting a person into a position of life or death dependent on you if you weren't willing to be there for them. It's also not the most ethical thing in the world to refuse. Yet they should be able to refuse, shouldn't they? But is it murder? I go back and forth like this.

If you're too poor to afford to cross state lines, do you have enough money to afford an abortion in the first place? Not trying to be insensitive or make a point, just wondering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 1:38 PM

Niki

We would, but right now, eugenicists run the show.

FREM

"Look how they suffer" will NEVER be a persuasive argument for "Let's kill them all." And yes, I'm perfectly familiar with Ceausescu. You do know that Sanger's Goons most decidedly tried to put my head on the chopping block, and would have, if they had the power.

As long as americans are dumber enough to murder their own children, they don't need the govt. to force them to, or step in and kill the kids themselves. That is what they really want, and will do, if not by the knife, then by poisoning people with RU486.

You know I know about suffering children. I ask you to think about a world without children. Consider 55 million dead. THAT, is the end result of the policies the american left has already made a reality, and any survivor will tell you they would rather live than die.

Mind you I don't even think a law is the answer: I think that the people have to wake up and be informed as to how they are genociding their own children on the all time scary concept of "expert medical advice." (On that one, I actually use the Palin term "Death Panel" which has a wide variety of uses.)

Speaking of which, I just saw Palin on O'Reilly. What a ditz. He got her to reverse her position in mid-rant. Or mid-meander. If you can convince her to change her position with a persuasive argument, then no one will ever have an idea of what they just elected. Sure, it's good for us to change our minds. We're not president. She will be bombarded by opposing persuasive arguments daily.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 2:22 PM

Yeah, see DT? This is the moral misgiving I come up against too, about the being a survivor versus being dead.

A person is probably never better off dead, and I even mean authoritarian types, cause when you kill them, someone just takes their place who has a grudge now. I'd like to see them hoist by their own petard, which is inevitable for the self-destructive goals they pursue, and humbled if that doesn't happen (also probably inevitable). But if you piss off their families, they'll find support with the old regime, and they rouse up support, and overthrow any new society people try to establish out of spite. It's the dialectic in action, one of the few things Marx was right about. These people will just come back, and continue throwing people into the meat grinder from the other end. You have to stop the meat grinder.

But that's not abortion. Like I said, abortion I struggle with, go back and forth on.

Where Frem is absolutely right on this, though, DT, is his ideas about education. A girl will probably still have children if they talk to her about more than abstinence, she'll just be able to chose when and where she gets pregnant, and what life her kids will have instead of going into credit debt and becoming a slave to the system for her choice to get pregnant before she had financial stability.

You might be right even the education has a sinister aspect, but at least education has the chance of rendering this whole thing a non-issue. Then most everyone can be satisfied.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 4:43 PM

Byte

if you believe in Life on Earth, you have to go all the way. Little fuzzy bunnies, christmas trees and criminals.

Abortion and family planning have nothing innately to do with finance. Anyone can go into debt or not, I haven't seen anything in life experience where people with children are more impoverished. If anything, it's the other way around. See, kids are a financial asset, unless you're abysmally stupid, and never ask your kids to do anything, and actually pay a quarter million dollars for their education, etc.

But in the real world, education need not cost a dime. Sure, if you're a millionaire, you can pay through the nose for education, but there's no reason for anyone else to.

Think about it: The liabilities of a family change very little due to the size of a family. They still need a house, utilities, a car, etc. The major change now was just created by Obama, in the family healthcare plan. Which brings me to my next point:

Anything which exists that makes a family a financial liability is an artificial creation. This means that the people who created it, assuming they thought things through, have that effect as an intent. IOW, they are eugenicists.

Overall though, kids are a pretty solid financial asset. Not only can they work for the family business, they are also potentially elligible for assistance. It's pretty hard to lose money on the deal without actually trying.

Yes, I grant that welfare is an entitlement created by lefties, which is ironic considering how RTL the concept is. I guess it's a lefty expression of the same core moral value.

Quote:
You might be right even the education has a sinister aspect, but at least education has the chance of rendering this whole thing a non-issue. Then most everyone can be satisfied.

Not sure what you're referring to now as education.

One thing that worries me about these sorts of policies is that they fairly strongly favor the religious, which probably puts separation of church and state and freedom of religion in more danger.

If you are a fundementalist christian today, you can be sure your children won't have abortions, and you can be exempt from Obamacare, and probably property taxes, which basically clears you of the major running eugenics programs. Food, of course, is not an issue: Kids can grow more food than they eat.

I've been crunching numbers on food production, and it really doesn't add up. We have the capacity now to produce food for what looks to me like several billion. I'm not sure what's going on. I suspect even corn and dairy farms are a means by which the food carrying capacity is hidden, to say nothing of ethanol.

It's all food for thought, or thought for food.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 4:58 PM

It's really pretty simple: If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If you don't want your tax dollars going to abortion, start protesting the wars now, because we're killing pregnant women at a pretty alarming rate, it seems.
If you support war- any war - you support tax dollars paying for abortion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 6:02 PM

DT:

Quote:
"Look how they suffer" will NEVER be a persuasive argument for "Let's kill them all."

All, huh ?
Yes/No, Black/White, On/Off - always all or nothing, is it ?
I note, and specifically point out to you that the moment you become emotionally engaged that your ability to reason goes south in a hurry, dude.

Quote:
You know I know about suffering children. I ask you to think about a world without children. Consider 55 million dead.

That's as lame as sayin male masturbation is genocide, honestly.

I will say that a world without children is a world without hope - but a world with twisted, broken children, bereft of visionaries because we destroyed them in the camps, isn't much fucking better.

Quote:
any survivor will tell you they would rather live than die.

Nice dodge - any SURVIVOR, sure - and for a FACT, and I have told you this, repeatedly, very few of them do survive, and a LOT of those who don't, didn't want to, they opted out, on purpose and specifically CHOOSING to die.

While they're not around to ask, I suspect we both have a pretty good idea of what their opinion would be of the short, horrible existance that was theirs to have, don't we ?

Consider also, this - those rescuees, the girls in particular, are THE most rabid pro-choice folk I've ever known, and why is that, what would CAUSE them to believe that way, what experiences would trend them towards that school of thought ?

Yeah, the SURVIVORS would tell you that, cause they already made that choice, and those who made the other one aren't around to ask, and that's like well over ninety fuckin percent of em.

Tis a mistake to make this argument to someone who has personally know a great many non-survivors, because they can utterly refute it.

Byte: indeed, but I am also of the firm opinion that the ONLY people who should have any say whatsoever on whether or not that collection of cells is a life or not is those who created it, period.

And speaking of education, here's a real rum-dinger-cinderblock-crapper for the powers that be around HERE.
Detroit Public Schools board gets no candidates
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100710/SCHOOLS/7100346/1026/Detroit-P
ublic-Schools-board-gets-no-candidates

Quote:
The deadline to get on the Aug. 3 primary ballot passed May 11 without anyone filing, meaning only a write-in candidate can be elected this fall.

Can you just see the huge, nasty smile over a pair of coldly gleaming eyes as I type this ?

And you better believe Bing hit the roof and started screaming for the disbandment of the school board knowing EXACTLY what's about to happen, oh yes indeedy, especially since we just got a Sudbury-type school set up over here.
http://www.annarbor.com/news/new-school-promises-students-environment-
of-freedom-democracy/
http://www.littlelakefreeschool.org/

Ok, yes, I admit it, imma little bit of a sadist about this, cause I am damn sure ENJOYING watching the local powers that be squirm as the iron fist closes on their throats, their little houses of cards come crashing down in flames...

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 6:15 PM

Frem, you have GOT to get on that school board write-in ballot! Can you just imagine the sound of all those bricks being shit in the school halls, as the administrators realize exactly what their own vaunted camera systems are about to be turned ON THEM?

That, I'd pay money to watch. Just their reaction.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 10, 2010 7:05 PM

According to someone in the Mayors office, as soon as that *possibility* occured to Bing, he RAN to the phone to call Worthy - man, I woulda paid good money to see the look on his face when the realization dawned on him.

ETA: Lemme clarify that - he's not allowed to call her on a cellphone or wireless for obvious reasons, they ain't complete morons.

But they ARE way out of their league, since apparently neither of em know what a passive hook switch bypass is.

If you really want a halfway secure convo, get a Tracphone at Walmart for eight bucks, pay cash, make the call and then pitch the damn thing in the bushes.

Worthy has a sweet gig goin, right out of the Jonathan Wild playbook, she has the stranglehold and can make em and break em, and when she breaks em she can play that whole cleaning up the corruption dog and pony show - but she failed to account for the integrity of Evans and Pugh, nor the cleverness of "some damn retired hack".

And now it's all coming to pieces on her, boo fekkin hoo, I'm underwhelmed with sympathy - you watch, once we get rid of her and Bing, Pugh is gonna be Mayor.

-Frem
Linkage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wild

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 7:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

As to sperm being life, that's an interesting one. I believe the RTLers believe conception is when one becomes "human". But if sperm are mindless organisms acting on instinct, isn't the fetus exactly the same organism until it's old enough to "think"? The delineation between an organism like sperm or eggs and the fertilized organism is an interesting debate.

Because if you're right, and the sperm is a living creature, then the newly-fertilized egg is one as well; ergo, every sperm ejaculated without entering the womb would equally be murder, wouldn't it? Do sperm have a "right to life" as well?

I know that gets nitpicky, but there's some validity to it. Scientists may say "life" begins at conception, but what is "life"? When does the egg become a "human being", which I'm assuming is what is being defended as having a right to life?

Frem, you make a good point. I know how the RTLers defend it, but the point is valid nonetheless. A child, for example, born to a drug addict who is a terrible, violent mother; if that child is abused, perhaps utilized for prostitution to buy drugs or pay off a debt, never able to escape the horrors of that life and never able to escape the circumstances they were born into--how strong would the desire to retain "life" be in that case?

An interesting point, and one I know is valid in some instances.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 7:59 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

To me, the issue isn't when life starts. It's when the organism is no longer part of the mother. As long as the organism is part of the mother, then the mother gets to decide. Much like an organ of the body.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
how strong would the desire to retain "life" be in that case?

Not very, we had a discussion round here a short while back in which I explained that my own beliefs do not allow me to interfere past a certain point, and how I will not, can not, cross that line when someone does not want to be saved, and I didn't mention it specifically, but if someone wishes to end their own existence of their own free will and truly means it, if I cannot convince them otherwise - I have to let it go, and that is a hard thing for me.

Lemme explain, this isn't like that friends father, who recently went down screaming, with cancer eating him alive and the medical establishment keepin him hanging on by a thread, watching the bills rack up with something like sadistic glee as they denied him pain relief under the ridiculous fiction of concern about addiction, goddamn that was horrible, just thinkin about it puts my temper up...

Ok, yeah, Life is sacred, sure, but not THAT sacred, not to be continued at a price like that, you know ?

But emotional pain can be just as horrific, and when someone who can not live with it, can not survive, chooses to end it - for a fact, you can't stop em, they WILL find a way, if they really mean it, and all tryin to does is make them desperate and it becomes a horror, a nightmare, you understand ?

So to me it's kinda the same thing.

Damn, this is difficult for me to even talk about, think about - you ever see Schindlers List, where he starts to completely lose it over the ones he could have, might have, saved ?
I feel just a little bit like that all the time, cause while theory is all well and good, the brutal reality is that you can't save em all, and sometimes, you should not try - of course ones heart says otherwise, but that's what makes us human, what makes us humane - and yet you CAN carry that too far and condemn someone to a nightmarish existence that is the closest our own world offers to the metaphysical concept of hell...

And that's where it gets hard, you see, cause when someone has made that irrevocable decision, and asks for your comfort, for you to hold their hand, or hold them in your arms, as they slip from this world to the next, and you know that if you turned your back on them, disrespected their personhood, their will, you maybe, just might save them, if only for a while - but you would also condemn them, what then, would one have me do ?

I've said it before, sometimes the hardest call, the greatest courage, is to stay your hand when all that is in you cries out to act, your emotions and primal drives in complete conflict with what your morals and intellect KNOW to be right, the proverbial rock and a hard place, and if I had never resolved that dilemma I would not be able to do what I do, it'd destroy me as surely as it destroys all who do that kind of work - but that never makes it easy, it never makes it painless, that's the price of being human.

So my stance on this, it doesn't come from being the cold blooded, callous jackass a lotta people take me for, it comes from the other end, mercy, compassion, to be HUMANE - look at how we will ease the suffering of a beloved pet and gift them with a dignified passing, in comfort and love, and yet we refuse to grant our own species that respect, clinging to "life" even when it has no value, no hope, nothing but screams, physical or emotional - what kind of a monster is ok with that, especially when it's not even that they CARE, so much as a convenient political agenda to exploit the On/Off, Black/White polar thinking taught to us to make those kind of games so easy for the powers that be, to turn us upon each other under the guise of a false mercy undeniably expressed by their failure to consider the issue whatsoever once the umbilical cord is cut.

Who then, are the real monsters here ?

Sure, Life is sacred, and so too is its beginning, and its ending, which should be treated with equal respect, but not to the degree where it denies Life itself, and all within it that makes it worth living, worth having, oh hell no.

And that's all I can say to it at the moment without getting all maudulin cause I got *BIZ* downtown....

You see, the fuckers that own Synagro Technologies, the bastards financing the greater bulk of the corruption around here, we managed to follow the money trail back and track down who owns em...
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20100711&Kategori=NEW
S01&Lopenr=7110511&Ref=AR&template=fullarticle

The fuckin Carlyle Group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group#Political_figures

And you better believe imma be ramming that down some folks throats crossways, while all the local Republicans are pointing fingers at Kwame and screamin about how corrupt the friggin Democrats are, and it's their own party faithful every damn bit as responsible, and what with wanna-be-governor (and NEVER gonna be) Cox having actively PROTECTED them from his position as State Attorney General, hooo boy, a veritable bulk case of political ammo here, and I'd be remiss in my duty if I didn't fire it at em.

Also, I just *have* to go drive past that Baptist Church today, on the principle of the thing, not only did yet ANOTHER of their little congregations punks get arrested last night, they themselves are now in seriously deep shit for knowing recipt of stolen property, as they've been fencing some of the loot for these punks via yardsales and the like, to finance their building renovation - and they got caught out by their own greed, in a way they never saw coming.
ProTip: If you're gonna resell a stolen xbox360, make sure to reformat the hard drive and erase the user info, neh ?

So I wanna deliver a pointed reminder that there's some folk you just don't ever wanna screw with, by driving slowly by when they're done pretending to be all noble and better-than and headed for their cars.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 2:15 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Because if you're right, and the sperm is a living creature, then the newly-fertilized egg is one as well; ergo, every sperm ejaculated without entering the womb would equally be murder, wouldn't it? Do sperm have a "right to life" as well?

Sperms are not living creatures they are living cells - what every living creature is made up of. An embryo is a living creature because it has its own unique DNA - it's a new life that has been formed.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 2:34 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

To me, the issue isn't when life starts. It's when the organism is no longer part of the mother. As long as the organism is part of the mother, then the mother gets to decide. Much like an organ of the body.

--Anthony

I agree with this logic, however it means late-term abortions are allowed doesn't it? Which is hard to stomach.

(Apologies folks, I'm about to get abstract)

I don't know, I think there's something in having laws to uphold society's values (sanctity of human life) - which are important/beneficial to the fabric of society... The idea of a culture where people have abortions quite casually (like in Russia I believe) is one that chills me a little bit.

So for me it's a balancing act, try to allow most women freedom of manouevre in the issue, but still uphold the value that abortion should not be treated casually - an ideal that would likely be eroded by a removal of the law...

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 3:25 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

To me, the issue isn't when life starts. It's when the organism is no longer part of the mother. As long as the organism is part of the mother, then the mother gets to decide. Much like an organ of the body.

--Anthony

Here here.

Again, why is the right - supposedly the political side of the spectrum that supports INDIVIDUAL rights, so hell bent on trying to take away those rights in terms of decision making around pregnancy. Surely it should be up the individual how they see the issue of 'when life begins' or how they feel about being pregnant and then up to them to decide on what to do about it. Forcing women to go through with pregnancies - all pregnancies regardless of the circumstances is somehow considered to be more humane than termination of an unborn, unrealised life? I don't get it.

People fantasise about the 'good old days' when laws were different. Well, women had pretty grim lives back then, before contraception, access to good facilities for bearing children, and only private, illegal abortion being available. Of course, rich women always had it better, access to doctors who would often for payment, perform 'curettes' in the name of some phantom medical problem. They could usually get access to contraception as well, as long as they were married and considered moral.

Poorer women had it worse, if married they were pretty much just infant bearing machines until they wore out or died in childbirth, because = you know there was no way a huge chunk of the population could afford treatment. A lot of children ended up in orphanages because there were just too many mouths to feed. I know our family had some of those back in the Depression. And of course unmarried mothers were either shunned and usually forced to give away their babies out of economic necessity. And adoption's kind of a lottery too, isn't it. Sure has been kind of up and down for the people I know who are or who had kids adopted. For those that are, there is a lifetime of wondering why your parents didn't or couldn't love you enough to keep you, and for the parents there is the anguish and guilt, not knowing about the decision to give up a child and send it into the world was the right one.

And as for orphanages - that's no way to raise a child/

So that's the idea of things like having readily available contraception and abortion services and I might add, universal health, when you get your arses around to it.

It's about giving people a bit of choice in their life and acknowledging that sometimes, what happens in your life is not always in your control, no matter how self actualised you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 4:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
So for me it's a balancing act, try to allow most women freedom of manouevre in the issue, but still uphold the value that abortion should not be treated casually - an ideal that would likely be eroded by a removal of the law...

I dunno, you're always gonna have people that do such things, but they're not and hopefully never gonna be a majority - it's hard to argue the sanctity of life with people screaming "Kill all the (enemy of the week)" without wanting to shove their hypocrisy down their gullet, you know ?

But I do feel such a thing should never be taken lightly, or casually, myself - and yet having seen the bitter consequences which can come of it, I tend to err on the side of freedom to make that choice, rather than have it made for one, cause I damn sure do not trust the folks who WOULD be making it, the same folk arguing sanctity of life (till, yanno, it pops out, uh huh) are the same ones screaming for the blood of the enemy of the week, most of the time.

And I have always felt, even as a youngster, that the Trojan Man oughta be a celebrated national hero, and the choice of contraception, just as the choice to accept or terminate a potential life, should rest, always and forever, SOLEY in the hands of the two people doin the banging, anything else is just begging for abuse, exploitation, and some crack brained asshats halfassed eugenics.

Speakin of halfassed - I'm none too concerned about my paint job, thankfully, but I must say some of them Baptists are a pretty good shot with a thrown rock...

Does that technically count as a stoning ?

My oh my, they seem to be rather pissed off at me.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 11, 2010 5:26 PM