U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[emulsion]

Contraception: This really hasn't been an issue since it was settled back in the 60s-70s. Now, all of a sudden, actual presidential candidates are saying it should be left up to the states as to whether it's even *legal*

Link? Among intelligent conservatives, the contraception debacle comes down to another government powers issue. The left is responsible for making inane accusations of how Republicans want to ban contraception. It's based on the whole "economic freedom" notion: that if it isn't free, it might as well be illegal.

Evolution: The right has always hated evolution, but their mission to preach Genesis in science class has actually made it through actual legislatures in a handful of states with others moving forward.

Again, link? Intelligent design was shot down in the courts years and years ago. Prove to me that the right has always hated evolution. The religious right maybe, but that's only the past few decades. Evolution has been a theory for a lot longer than that.

Global Warming: Before Al Gore made it cool, it wasn't such a partisan issue. Now the right is on a mission to castrate the EPA. My senator, Jim Inhofe, actually says it's the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American People.

What does the EPA have to do with global warming? Do they oversee the rest of the fossil fuel-burning world? All I've seen are tax incentives for failed, impractical "solutions" and light bulb mandates? The Obama administration hasn't done shit for the environment. We're not even close to understanding climate change much less attempting to fix it. We can say only that it's happening, and we've had a significant hand in it.

Religious Freedom: Yeah, the Right like the one-way street on this one. They've tried legislating "freedom of religion" outs to women's health care, bullying, workplace and housing discrimination, marriage discrimination, etc. All while making sure to promote Islamaphobia at every turn with tripe like anti-Sharia legislation.

This is more lefty demagoguery. "There's a war on women." "Republicans hate the poor." Why would you want to parrot hyperbole for the sake of riling animosities? I'll never understand it.

Islam does a great job of promoting "Islamaphobia" on its own. As much as American liberals babble about science and women's rights, you'd hardly suspect them to hold Muslims as their favorite religious other, since the most extreme want the same thing the extreme Christians want, the Caliphate; fortunately for us, the latter rarely goes on murderous rampages.

[Deleted]

Haha this reminds of an awesome "theory" I came across a while ago. I can't find the site again, looks to be dead now.

But anyway, some guy hypothesized that since dinosaurs were so massive, it must have meant that the earth was rotating faster, therefore causing these animals to grow so large. Well, lo and behold, the earth started spinning so fast that a huge chunk of it near the equator "broke off" and became the moon. He believed that there are dinosaur fossils on the moon.

I shit you not.

Here's a link I found referencing it. Enjoy!

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=123813

They need to hire this guy to the astronomic science think-tanks, he's got the required creativity to come up with the insane hypothesis that those guys need when trying to solve the mysteries of the universe.

[emulsion]

Haha this reminds of an awesome "theory" I came across a while ago. I can't find the site again, looks to be dead now.

But anyway, some guy hypothesized that since dinosaurs were so massive, it must have meant that the earth was rotating faster, therefore causing these animals to grow so large. Well, lo and behold, the earth started spinning so fast that a huge chunk of it near the equator "broke off" and became the moon. He believed that there are dinosaur fossils on the moon.

I shit you not.

Here's a link I found referencing it. Enjoy!

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=123813

So the moon is, in reality, a geological slap bracelet.

[emulsion]

LOL. Ya know, it could've had a little bit of taste you know. Grey just isn't a great color to give yourself. Why not hot pink or a bright yellow?

Zebra stripes and leopard spots!

[Paranoid Android]

I see the Mormon Romney can't win the south. Some pundates are making such a BIG deal out of this. To me it doesnt matter no way will the south vote democrat and especially Obama.

I saw Mississippi and Alabama went Santorum in primaries. In my opinion I never understand why states like these (poorest, least educated) always vote against their interest. At least the did not vote for big rich business guy in primary. Again for general we will see if Romney is the Republican canditate.

[Bridgetjones]

1) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...medium=twitter

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1181291.html (in context with other remarks)

2) http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_id5.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelli...gn_in_politics

3) http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...ich/?mobile=nc

http://www.quora.com/Science/If-the-...worry-about-it

4) http://swampland.time.com/2011/11/04...us-tormenters/

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/christian...eens-cms-19213

http://www.civilrights.org/lgbt/enda...emption-1.html

I hope you recognize there's a wide swath of sources here before you say I'm only citing lib-tards.

Also, can you specify what hyperbole I used? Because what you quoted didn't appear anywhere in my post.

EDIT: "Link!" is not an argument. Do your own google searches and read your own news.

[bergmann620]

Contraception: This really hasn't been an issue since it was settled back in the 60s-70s. Now, all of a sudden, actual presidential candidates are saying it should be left up to the states as to whether it's even *legal*

Sorry, I had to sneak back in for this one.

I believe that states have the right to ban contraception. I believe this because we see that they obviously have the right to ban marijuana.

I don't believe they should have the right, but that is up to the state's Constitution, and our Federal one.

[Bridgetjones]

Sorry, I had to sneak back in for this one.

I believe that states have the right to ban contraception. I believe this because we see that they obviously have the right to ban marijuana.

I don't believe they should have the right, but that is up to the state's Constitution, and our Federal one.

You're wrong. Very, very wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstadt_v._Baird

[emulsion]

I hope you recognize there's a wide swath of sources here before you say I'm only citing lib-tards.

I can, with the power of Confirmation Bias, Google shit I'd like to hear on my own. Don't get lazy now. With such a long bulleted list, I would think you'd have better sources than HuffPost, Think Progress and Wikipedia. How about taking the time to specifically address the issues I raised using your own words, unless in posting a list of links to Stuff People I Agree with Said, you wanted to reinforce my suspicions.

Also, can you specify what hyperbole I used? Because what you quoted didn't appear anywhere in my post.

I was paraphrasing your list of grievances in an attempt to refer back to an earlier argument in this thread about hyperbole. You just posted a bulleted list of establishment Democrat talking points followed by a bulleted list of partisan "sources" (more appropriately, I'm sure, reverse sources) without responding to one thing that I wrote, and you're confused about where you used hyperbole?

EDIT: "Link!" is not an argument.

I didn't just say "Link," did I? Anywhere.

Do your own google searches and read your own news.

Do you live, eat and breathe relativism? It's my responsibility to source your claims?

[Bridgetjones]

I can, with the power of Confirmation Bias, Google shit I'd like to hear on my own. Don't get lazy now. With such a long bulleted list, I would think you'd have better sources than HuffPost, Think Progress and Wikipedia. How about taking the time to specifically address the issues I raised using your own words, unless in posting a list of links to Stuff People I Agree with Said, you wanted to reinforce my suspicions.



I was paraphrasing your list of grievances in an attempt to refer back to an earlier argument in this thread about hyperbole. You just posted a bulleted list of establishment Democrat talking points followed by a bulleted list of partisan "sources" (more appropriately, I'm sure, reverse sources) without responding to one thing that I wrote, and you're confused about where you used hyperbole?

You didn't really read any of those links, clearly. I'm not going to write you an abstract or a full dissertation. Those links have lists or collections of links and quotes that make them convenient to use. The sources are cited in the articles and on the wikipedia pages. Are you seriously questioning the proposed legislation linked to in the articles because you don't like the website linking them? Sorry, dude, but I dont' have time to go to each state's government site to link them for you, and The Blaze and Fox aren't really reporting on them. If you think that quotes from politicians and actual text of proposed legislation is "partisan 'sources'" then I can't help you.

And, for the record, those "talking points" are actual issues being raised in states and the country. You bet your ass the democrats are talking about them.

---------- Post added 2012-03-14 at 04:22 PM ----------

I didn't just say "Link," did I? Anywhere. Do you live, eat and breathe relativism? It's my responsibility to source your claims?

You said "link" right before saying a bunch of un-informed stuff about how the ID debate was settled years ago. You also implied that libs want the government to pay for birth control and that I said they want it made illegal.

So, no, I don't want you to research everything I say. But researching something you say before saying it would be a splendid start.

[Deleted]

Just FYI, supporting States right to ban contraception doesn't mean you actually support banning contraception or that you dislike the use of contraceptives in your personal life. Just like supporting the right for state's to legalize marijuana doesn't mean you actually want them to do that or that you personally approve of the use of marijuana.

[emulsion]

You didn't really read any of those links, clearly. I'm not going to write you an abstract or a full dissertation. Those links have lists or collections of links and quotes that make them convenient to use. The sources are cited in the articles and on the wikipedia pages. Are you seriously questioning the proposed legislation linked to in the articles because you don't like the website linking them? Sorry, dude, but I dont' have time to go to each state's government site to link them for you, and The Blaze and Fox aren't really reporting on them. If you think that quotes from politicians and actual text of proposed legislation is "partisan 'sources'" then I can't help you.

And, for the record, those "talking points" are actual issues being raised in states and the country. You bet your ass the democrats are talking about them.

I don't read HuffPost and Think Progress for the same reason I don't watch Fox News or The Blaze (I have no idea what that even is). I didn't ask for a dissertation. I asked for proof of claims. You gave me partisan links about nefarious phantom legislation and fear mongering speculation about possible ramifications and dangerous mindsets and other intangibles that American liberals wring their hands about. It's no different than the paranoia about Obama taking guns away or trying to destroy America with his progressive agenda. Same shit, different flavor. It's a tired shtick.

I'm sure none of those "actual issues" were actually manufactured for the purpose of discussion.

You said "link" right before saying a bunch of un-informed stuff about how the ID debate was settled years ago. You also implied that libs want the government to pay for birth control and that I said they want it made illegal.

So, no, I don't want you to research everything I say. But researching something you say before saying it would be a splendid start.

I was a part of the anti-ID movement, actually. I did a lot of science writing at the time for several organizations. I know exactly how it went.

Again, you think it's my responsibility to research your claims. Didn't you say you studied law? Did they not talk about the burden of proof in college?

[Callace]

This is more lefty demagoguery. "There's a war on women." Why would you want to parrot hyperbole for the sake of riling animosities? I'll never understand it.

Shit man, look at all of the states that are defunding Planned Parenthood, creating bills that grant "personhood" rights to fetuses, and generally attempting to reverse Roe Vs. Wade. It ain't independents doing that, or moderates, or democrats. I know where you're coming from, but it's not like we can't connect the dots.

---------- Post added 2012-03-14 at 09:42 PM ----------

$4.37 average in California. Highest gas tax in the nation ftw! We're #1! We're #1!

I thought about moving to Cali once, but the cost of living frightens me. 0.O

---------- Post added 2012-03-14 at 09:51 PM ----------

Just FYI, supporting States right to ban contraception doesn't mean you actually support banning contraception or that you dislike the use of contraceptives in your personal life. Just like supporting the right for state's to legalize marijuana doesn't mean you actually want them to do that or that you personally approve of the use of marijuana.

That's extremely romantic of you. Your definition of "support" is probably the most relativistic I have ever seen. I had to reread because it struck me as odd. You must put perception before causality or something.

[emulsion]

Shit man, look at all of the states that are defunding Planned Parenthood, creating bills that grant "personhood" rights to fetuses, and generally attempting to reverse Roe Vs. Wade. It ain't independents doing that, or moderates, or democrats. I know where you're coming from, but it's not like we can't connect the dots.

I'm not denying that there are a whole bunch of idiot neocons out there who want to do all of the above for "religious" or "moral" reasons. It doesn't mean it's that there aren't other reasons to defund Planned Parenthood or overturn Roe vs. Wade that are actually reasonable in the sense that there are tangible reasons for wanting to do those things. Defunding Planned Parenthood could be about hating women, but that's a hell of a thing to prove. It's more likely that it's based on the opinion that the government just shouldn't be involved in certain things, which rings true considering traditional conservative philosophy. The problem is, as far as the opposing political party is concerned and their supporters, the distinction doesn't matter.

[Deleted]

That's extremely romantic of you. Your definition of "support" is probably the most relativistic I have ever seen. I had to reread because it struck me as odd. You must put perception before causality or something.

Are you seriously having trouble grasping how it's completely logical to hold those stances that I presented above?

Not everyone wants to ban what they dislike and legalize what they enjoy.

[Bridgetjones]

QUOTE=emulsion;15917309]I don't read HuffPost and Think Progress for the same reason I don't watch Fox News or The Blaze (I have no idea what that even is). I didn't ask for a dissertation. I asked for proof of claims. You gave me partisan links about nefarious phantom legislation and fear mongering speculation about possible ramifications and dangerous mindsets and other intangibles that American liberals wring their hands about. It's no different than the paranoia about Obama taking guns away or trying to destroy America with his progressive agenda. Same shit, different flavor. It's a tired shtick.

I'm sure none of those "actual issues" were actually manufactured for the purpose of discussion.



I was a part of the anti-ID movement, actually. I did a lot of science writing at the time for several organizations. I know exactly how it went.

Again, you think it's my responsibility to research your claims. Didn't you say you studied law? Did they not talk about the burden of proof in college?[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelli...gn_in_politics lists 21 different examples (with citations) about various attempts to include ID in the classroom, ranging from legislation to school board action to lawsuits.

Here's a link about legislation in my state of Oklahoma. They're currently waiting to vote on this bill, and a similar bill was introduced last year. Notice this is linked from a PRO-ID website.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02...se_056571.html

Just for the funzies, here's another gem from OK. It's a backdoor attempt at banning certain kinds of birth control, IVF, and medical procedures involving stem cells.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2...tuses-in-food/

So, no. It's not "phantom" legislation. It's legislation that gets brought up over and over and over again by relentless religious repubs. That said, I think your accusation that I'm trying to make the right into a bogeyman are misplaced; the entire point is that they're doing it themselves. These bills are normal and completely expected from them. Hell, look at our current House. They all ran on economic issues and the first thing they did was try to defund Planned Parenthood and NPR.

---------- Post added 2012-03-14 at 05:06 PM ----------

Are you seriously having trouble grasping how it's completely logical to hold those stances that I presented above?

Not everyone wants to ban what they dislike and legalize what they enjoy.

I totally agree with you on this one, Di. I, personally, find abortion to be repugnant and heinous, but I support a woman's right to chose (especially since I'm not a woman). I also find most religions distasteful and regressive, but I'll fight tooth and nail for their rights to worship, especially minorities.

[Callace]

Not everyone wants to ban what they dislike

Makes perfect sense.

and legalize what they enjoy.

Your abstraction no longer represents any reality I'm aware of, unless it's a drug kingpin trying to keep his profit margins. It doesn't fit any other conceivable scenario in any reality I can think of.

---------- Post added 2012-03-14 at 10:47 PM ----------

I totally agree with you on this one, Di. I, personally, find abortion to be repugnant and heinous, but I support a woman's right to chose (especially since I'm not a woman). I also find most religions distasteful and regressive, but I'll fight tooth and nail for their rights to worship, especially minorities.

You only agreed with half of his statement here.

[Deleted]

Makes perfect sense.

Good.

The abstraction no longer represents any reality I'm aware of, unless it's a drug kingpin trying to keep his profit margins. It doesn't fit any other conceivable scenario in any reality I can think of.

I should've said "Not everyone wants to ban what they dislike and only legalize what they enjoy."

Either way, people can support the right for people to do things even if they don't like it. It's also a constitutional position to let states decide on the legality of contraceptives, even if you don't want them to ban it.

[Callace]

Good.

I should've said "Not everyone wants to ban what they dislike and only legalize what they enjoy."

Either way, people can support the right for people to do things even if they don't like it. It's also a constitutional position to let states decide on the legality of contraceptives, even if you don't want them to ban it.

Your syntax confused the hell out of me. I thought you meant "[people] didn't want what they enjoyed to be made legal". That would have made for a pretty awkward hypothetical position.

[Deleted]

Your syntax confused the hell out of me. I thought you meant "[people] didn't want what they enjoyed to be made legal". That would have made for a pretty awkward hypothetical position.

Well I like driving at high speeds on public roads. That said, I don't want to make it legal. There are alot of things people like to do, but once you let everyone do it, it's not such a good idea anymore

Also I would enjoy a new massive government handout for myself, but I don't want the government to do it. Not only because it goes against my principles, but because of the precedent it would set etc.

For example, right now I'm enjoying almost free college education sponsored by charities and the government. Yet I wish government would not pay for college.