I strongly doubt that Rick Santorum or any of the other "R" candidates would have put forth a budget with a $1.4 trillion deficit. I strongly doubt any of them would have stopped Keystone. I strongly doubt any of them would have put forth anything resembling 'Obamacare'.

Do I need to go on?

BoatShoes;1089468 wrote:If the same culpable mental states that are applicable to homicide are applicable to fetus' a woman who engages in behavior that creates a high risk for a miscarriage is consciously disregarding a substantial risk to human life...a mental state that is sufficient for a murder charge if concurrent with the death of a human being in any jurisdiction. Sure it sounds ridiculous at first glance but this is what is required if were to take the position that a fetus is a human person seriously

Again, completely misguided. Involuntary manslaughter, at best, and even then it's a HUGE HUGE HUGE stretch. Again, she's not getting pregnant just so she can "commit fetus homicide", so no intent. And it's logically inconsistent to say the decision to get pregnant is disregarding life, since that life would not otherwise exist. Following the same logic, the use of birth control is then also a disregard for life. Therefore, the choice of getting pregnant can't be considered in determining culpability.

To be guilty of "murder", the existence of the fetus has to be taken as a given because your argument not to get pregnant would also mean the fetus doesn't exist. Same outcome to the fetus in either case, so you can only look at her actions post-pregnancy in determining guilt, and then your case falls completely apart.

It's an argument that has the undesired outcome of preventing/taking life rather than promoting it. It would be like finding doctors who perform unsuccessful transplants guilty of murder - you'd be pronouncing a death sentence on the thousands of people who get a new lease on life with transplants each year. And it's also a good logical comparison test - given the choice, would those transplant candidates accept the risk? Absolutely. Given the chance to exist or not exist, would the fetus choose to accept the risk? Absolutely.

HitsRus;1089602 wrote:I strongly doubt that Rick Santorum or any of the other "R" candidates would have put forth a budget with a $1.4 trillion deficit. I strongly doubt any of them would have stopped Keystone. I strongly doubt any of them would have put forth anything resembling 'Obamacare'.

Do I need to go on?

Nope. You're preaching to the choir.

BoatShoes;1089477 wrote:N

I said the fetus is incapable of a battery because it can't possibly form a mental state because it has no more cognitive capacity than a blade of grass until 23 weeks.

Battery is battery. Mental state only goes to determining culpability. The fetus is not criminally liable, but it still commits battery.

HitsRus;1089602 wrote:I strongly doubt that Rick Santorum or any of the other "R" candidates would have put forth a budget with a $1.4 trillion deficit. I strongly doubt any of them would have stopped Keystone. I strongly doubt any of them would have put forth anything resembling 'Obamacare'.

Do I need to go on?

What was the deficit in George Bush's last year in office? Who put forth the unfunded prescription drug benefit that added trillions to our future liabilities? You say Santorum is different, but he voted for everything Bush ever wanted before he was run out of office by his constituents.

believer;1089409 wrote:Liberal paranoia about Santorum's "eeeeeevil religiosity" is laughable. Keep lapping up the MSM flavored Kool Aid....I think it's the same nasty tasting crap people couldn't get enough of during Obama's 2008 campaign. :rolleyes:

I think you've drowned yourself in the GOP punch at times.

Calling the other people stupid sheep is childish and a bad argument.

Santorum has said he supports policies which very much force the religious beliefs of some on everyone. That isn't hyperbole but merely what he's said. If you don't like something, don't do it, don't try to make it so that everyone else can't do it.

BGFalcons82;1089588 wrote:I really don't know why the "Paul-Bots" and "Ronulans" are so touchy, nee worshipping, about their guy. Seriously, whenever someone disagrees with Dr. Ron or won't endorse him, these supporters go nuts berating, defaming, lambasting, impugning, and deriding those that don't agree with them. Their fanaticism is eerily similar to the Obama devotees. It's as if y'all are saying, "Love Ron or Die".

I listened to the 15 minute video. To claim Mark Levin is marxist in any shape/manner/form is ludicrous. To claim he's a shrill for Sean Hannity is just plain intellectually ignorant. These two fellas from the video, who do NOT know everything, go after him like he's a tag-along conservative. This is extraordinarily idiotic and just plain false. I would suggest these two do a little more fact-checking before going off on one of the great conservative voices of our time. He's no "neo conservative" and is the antithesis of left-wingers. The fact these guys get their panties in such a wad because Mark Levin doesn't care for Dr. Paul is childish, if not disturbing.

To surmise, Levin uses the Ron Paul newletters against him on the air. We can debate whether or not Dr. Paul knew what was in them...but he signed them, so Levin takes them as Dr. Paul's words. The station in Toledo, WSPD, doesn't like him doing so and pulls his contract. Levin responds and claims the station pulled him because of his attacks on Dr. Paul and his religion. The station says it has nothing to do with religion, it's that they don't want him attacking Dr. Paul. Then there's child-like tantrums from both Levin and WSPD, references to Limbaugh's hyberbolic rants, and a complete misunderstanding of what Levin does. The fact that he was even on the air in the Socialist Republic of Toledo is amazing and that he lasted 6 years.

Oh I agree us Paulbots get a tad touchy. Myself personally, a lot moreso back in 08 when EVERYONE and their mother said the guy was a wack job.

I think I read where his voter base has increased 4 to 5 fold in comparison to 08. That's a remarkable feat IMO.

As for Levin, I've never really listened to him. But did you know? The roots of neoconservatism and aggressive, first strike war policy dates back several decades and was originated by radical leftists? It's true. The evolution process of this nonsensical first strike policy was formulated by the Trotskiites....all left wing nutjobs.

They tried their damndest to swing the Democratic Party to become that way. World domination via force. They were booted out and wiggled themselves through the ranks of the GOP...pushing that agenda during the Reagan years. Other than the ridiculous bombing of Granada, Reagan denounced that thinking...as did Bush the 41st.

But with Clinton in office, the neocons finally began making headway. And by 1998, they began altering America's non interventionalist policy.

It is my belief and many others, the Iraq War was gonna happen with or without 9-11. But after that terrorist attack, these knuckleheads thought it now would become a slam dunk sell to the American public...in tying Saddam Hussein with radical Islamists.

Amazingly, the Congress fell for deception...and history has been made.

I dont base my opinion of Santorum off what the msm says, I base it off my research of him and his record. Simple as that. He is the same type of conservative as W Bush and we dont need that.


As for Levin, its a bit of a stretch to call him one of the greatest conservative minds of our generation
Anytime ive listened to him be challenged on his show, he just yells and calls people names. Hardly the sign of an intellectual person. He basically just rides Hannitys jock..


As for Paul, I do realize it is not likely for him to win. However I am not just for Paul. I am for the movement and I believe its growing and in four years we will have more people like Paul who will get this country back on the right track. So that is why I will not waiver and go against my beliefs.

I Wear Pants;1089630 wrote:Santorum has said he supports policies which very much force the religious beliefs of some on everyone. That isn't hyperbole but merely what he's said.

Santorum may have his own personal rooted religious beliefs but if you think that means he'll "force the religious beliefs of some on everyone" that's just friggin absurd. I don't buy off on that nonsense anymore than there are some who may think Obama wants to implement Sharia Law or Romney wants a copy of the Book of Mormon placed in every home.

Even if Santorum wanted to, there's this silly thing known as the Constitution that has certain way of checking and balancing gubmint powers through things like the buffoons in Congress and the leftists on the Supreme Court.

Had Santorum not rebounded in the primaries the MSM wouldn't even be giving him a second glance. But since he's regained some momentum - well - now all of a sudden there's a keen interest in his religious beliefs. I wish Obama had received the same attention 4 years ago.

pmoney25;1089633 wrote:As for Paul, I do realize it is not likely for him to win. However I am not just for Paul. I am for the movement and I believe its growing and in four years we will have more people like Paul who will get this country back on the right track. So that is why I will not waiver and go against my beliefs.

That's all fine and dandy.

But the over-the-top hyperbole coming out of the mouths of the Paulists when anyone dares criticize their man is more than scary. If that's the kind of folks you think will get this country on track in 4 years after you Paul Bots help re-elect the Bammer by default, then heaven help us.

pmoney25;1089633 wrote:As for Levin, its a bit of a stretch to call him one of the greatest conservative minds of our generation
Anytime ive listened to him be challenged on his show, he just yells and calls people names. Hardly the sign of an intellectual person. He basically just rides Hannitys jock.

Sadly, there are still those that can't differentiate conservatism from libertarianism. There is no finer conservative among us than Mark Levin. As far as yelling at callers, he has difficulty dealing with liberal callers that can't defend their positions with any intelligence. You might be interested to know that a fair amount of his listeners can't wait for him to go off on an ignorant caller. Milquetoast doesn't sell.

What was the deficit in George Bush's last year in office?

geez...you are worse than the democrats. George Bush isn't running anymore. But I would dare say, that if he was still POTUS, you would not have had continuing deficits, Obama care, rejection of Keystone...etc etc.

pmoney25;1089633 wrote:As for Paul, I do realize it is not likely for him to win. However I am not just for Paul. I am for the movement and I believe its growing and in four years we will have more people like Paul who will get this country back on the right track. So that is why I will not waiver and go against my beliefs.

That's all fine and dandy.

But the over-the-top hyperbole coming out of the mouths of the Paulists when anyone dares criticize their man is more than scary. If that's the kind of folks you think will get this country on track in 4 years after you Paul Bots help re-elect the Bammer by default, then heaven help us. Oops I'm sorry...I said "heaven." Is that too religious?

BGFalcons82;1089645 wrote:Sadly, there are still those that can't differentiate conservatism from libertarianism. There is no finer conservative among us than Mark Levin. As far as yelling at callers, he has difficulty dealing with liberal callers that can't defend their positions with any intelligence. You might be interested to know that a fair amount of his listeners can't wait for him to go off on an ignorant caller. Milquetoast doesn't sell.

He also has a difficult time dealing with the libertarian Paulist Robotitons who call in and make some of the leftist actually appear semi-coherent.

pmoney25;1089633 wrote:As for Paul, I do realize it is not likely for him to win. However I am not just for Paul. I am for the movement and I believe its growing and in four years we will have more people like Paul who will get this country back on the right track. So that is why I will not waiver and go against my beliefs.

That's all fine and dandy.

But the over-the-top hyperbole coming out of the mouths of the Paulists when anyone dares criticize their man is more than scary. If that's the kind of folks you think will get this country on track in 4 years after you Paul Bots help re-elect the Bammer by default, then heaven help us. Oops I'm sorry...I said "heaven." Is that too religious?

BGFalcons82;1089645 wrote:Sadly, there are still those that can't differentiate conservatism from libertarianism. There is no finer conservative among us than Mark Levin. As far as yelling at callers, he has difficulty dealing with liberal callers that can't defend their positions with any intelligence. You might be interested to know that a fair amount of his listeners can't wait for him to go off on an ignorant caller. Milquetoast doesn't sell.

He also has a difficult time dealing with the libertarian Paulist Robotitons who call in and make some of the leftists actually appear semi-coherent.

These talk show host have done a great job tapping into peoples fears and getting people to believe terrorist lurk around every corner, that Obama and Stalin are essentially the same person and that we need to sacrifice some freedom for security. I am sorry but you cannot lay claim to being a conservative while wasting money overseas, fighting undeclared wars, passing laws like the patriot act and ndaa(yes I know obama signed this but conservatives did vote for it). Levin is just another run of the mill neocon who can talk a good game .

The bottom line is you either have freedom or you dont. You either follow the constitution or you dont.

Politico has a report up right now that a group of Reublican Senators are thinking of publicly coming out and demanding the party find a new candidate if Willard loses Michigan to Santorum.

Some of the party power brokers have been crunching the numbers, and if someone came in after Super Tuesday and won enough delegates to get to a brokered convention they could conceivably find a new candidate.

As it said,

"If somebody came on the scene that week after Super Tuesday with, ‘I'm coming in. I'm taking a look at this,’ there are enough delegates. He would suck all the oxygen out of the race. People wouldn't even give a shit who won on these other dates in March that are after Super Tuesday. I mean, seriously, who would care? It would all be about a new savior.”

These next 10 days are going to determine the fate of the Republican primary because Willard is done if he loses Michigan, and Santorum will lose a national election.

I have not the slightest clue who, but I am convinced that at this point if Willard chokes on the 28th we are going to get another option to start to entertain as the field as constructed can't win.

http://www.politico.com/playbook/

I strongly doubt that Rick Santorum or any of the other "R" candidates would have put forth a budget with a $1.4 trillion deficit.

I have yet to see a budget proposal from any of them D or R that doesn't project trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see when eliminate accounting gimmicks.

IggyPride00;1089695 wrote:These next 10 days are going to determine the fate of the Republican primary because Willard is done if he loses Michigan, and Santorum will lose a national election.

I'm not so sure. A lot of division will ultimately subside once the real race begins. At the end of the day, people will reluctantly vote against Obama. On top of that, the message is going to change. None of these candidates trying to appeal to the conservatives that mostly decide primaries will somehow be less appealing when they moderate their message more and start targeting independents in the general.

And if the economy still stinks, hammering the table on how almost everyone is worse-off than before Obama is going to resonate in a big, big way. The Republican candidate, forgettable or as unappealing as they may be, isn't going to matter all that much. If the economy stinks, no amount of bullshit, spin and class warfare games will save Obama. If the economy is on the rebound, then he's simply going to outspend anyone and it would take a truly strong candidate to beat him.

IggyPride00;1089695 wrote: I have yet to see a budget proposal from any of them D or R that doesn't project trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see when eliminate accounting gimmicks.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

BGFalcons82;1089645 wrote:... he has difficulty dealing with liberal callers that can't defend their positions with any intelligence.

Isn't that the truth, though. I've met some liberals who clearly are quite smart, yet they buy-into these great sounding naive ideals with no understanding that the world doesn't and can't work that way. They don't hear anything you say because their naive "utopia" is so wonderful that the journey to get there, no matter how painful and costly, is irrelevant to them.

Kind of like buying a nice looking car without bothering to kick the tires and check under the hood - you end-up with a lot of lemons.

BGFalcons82;1089645 wrote:Sadly, there are still those that can't differentiate conservatism from libertarianism. There is no finer conservative among us than Mark Levin.

If you want to claim the term "conservative" for Trotskyite/Wilsonians like Levin, then you can have it. I find them all despicable, not just Levin. I just found it funny that Levin would start getting shitcanned by radio stations. He is as bad as anyone at convincing the sheep who they should vote for by distorting and misrepresenting Ron Paul's positions and smearing him with baseless nonsense that the left wingers would be proud of.

I'm officially convinced that Ron Paul is the way to go. If Santorum wins the nomination I will be writing in Ron Paul. Obama's budget just makes me so sick.



The reason I couldn't really support the Ron Paul movement is that on a local and state level, I completely disagree with libertarianism. But I will gladly let Ron Paul hit the reset button on Washington DC. Let's do this!

believer;1089636 wrote:Santorum may have his own personal rooted religious beliefs but if you think that means he'll "force the religious beliefs of some on everyone" that's just friggin absurd. I don't buy off on that nonsense anymore than there are some who may think Obama wants to implement Sharia Law or Romney wants a copy of the Book of Mormon placed in every home.

Even if Santorum wanted to, there's this silly thing known as the Constitution that has certain way of checking and balancing gubmint powers through things like the buffoons in Congress and the leftists on the Supreme Court.

Had Santorum not rebounded in the primaries the MSM wouldn't even be giving him a second glance. But since he's regained some momentum - well - now all of a sudden there's a keen interest in his religious beliefs. I wish Obama had received the same attention 4 years ago.

If you have been paying attention I've been talking about how shitty Santorum is far before the "MSM" gave a shit. I don't watch that crap.

And you're lying to yourself if you think it's all slanted liberally. The last few times I've watched it was basically "we need to go to war with Iran" propaganda.

I think the problem Paul supporters have is that people like you have always written him off and always talk about him with that "well he has no chance" tone. If people like yourself did that with the actual shitty candidates maybe people wouldn't vote for them, attitudes and confidence effect elections just like they do the stock market.

Funny how you say Santorum won't be able to do what he wants as it violates the constitution yet you believe (I think) that Obamacare and other policies like his violate the constitution. Seems a bit of a contradictory stance to hold.

I don't put much stock into people listening to the constitution because we have shit like the Patriot Act, DMCA (parts of that at least), and will have some form of something like SOPA/PIPA soon. These guys on both sides are trampling all over our liberties and most people are perfectly fine with them doing it.

Acting like we have a legitimate choice in elections is pretending that choosing between Coke and Pepsi is a choice between two distinct things. It isn't, they're both sodas they just come in a different colored can. And we're essentially limited to Coke or Pepsi, we can't choose Mountain Dew or something like Jones Soda at all. We have only the illusion of choice and most people are stupid enough to get invested in the argument. "Coke is ruining the soft drink market with it's propping up of the rich!" "Pepsi is stealing from the successful to give to the lazy!".

If you have ever felt attached to a political party in the modern world congratulations, you're fucking retarded.

gut;1089706 wrote:Isn't that the truth, though. I've met some liberals who clearly are quite smart, yet they buy-into these great sounding naive ideals with no understanding that the world doesn't and can't work that way. They don't hear anything you say because their naive "utopia" is so wonderful that the journey to get there, no matter how painful and costly, is irrelevant to them.

Kind of like buying a nice looking car without bothering to kick the tires and check under the hood - you end-up with a lot of lemons.

Ah yes, all people who have an opposing viewpoint to yours are stupid and if they aren't they are naive.

Fucking incredible this attitude.

I Wear Pants;1090164 wrote:Ah yes, all people who have an opposing viewpoint to yours are stupid and if they aren't they are naive.

****ing incredible this attitude.

That's not what I said, but thanks for proving my point. I never said people with opposing views are stupid or naive, I said most [liberals] I have encountered have very ignorant opinions on some matters. Same could be said for many on the far right. Simply put, radical opinions and views tend to have very little support because, generally speaking, they are wrong. I don't attempt to offer medical advice, but that doesn't prevent many people equally ignorant with regard to economics and the markets from having an opinion. Smart people can be dumb when they throw their hat into a ring they know nothing about (which is actually what I said, but it's not what you read because you had your opinion and ignored what was written).

The more support and validation a radical view has, the more mainstream acceptance it gains. But I would compare the structure/foundation of their beliefs and arguments to resemble that of people who take the bible literally. It's easy to see the ignorance in the latter, but the former relies equally on faith and a rejection of reality. Again, the lack of substance is why it has so little mainstream support.

I Wear Pants;1090163 wrote:I think the problem Paul supporters have is that people like you have always written him off and always talk about him with that "well he has no chance" tone. If people like yourself did that with the actual shitty candidates maybe people wouldn't vote for them, attitudes and confidence effect elections just like they do the stock market.
...........

If you have ever felt attached to a political party in the modern world congratulations, you're fucking retarded.

Although I'll admit to voting Republican 90% of the time, the only reason I might appear "attached" to the party is because I tend to be a realist and a pragmatist. This country has a two-party system. Third parties rarely - if ever - have any success EXCEPT to skew the vote to one of the major parties or the other thereby serving to tip the political scale in the exact opposite direction the third party had hoped to fix. Therefore, I will always cast my general election vote for the major party candidate whose political views come closest to mine...which - for better or worse - almost always goes Republican.

When the Paulists help get Obama re-elected by default, at least I'll sleep well at night knowing my vote went the best possible political direction.