I've noticed a sharp dropoff in the number of pro-conservative posts over the last couple of months...

Did the game community become more liberal?

Did all the conservatives leave to spam the CNN news stories with comments "This is why Obama IS the Joker!" even when the story is on Lebron James?

I was going to make a post directed at all the conservatives about how the republicans have been complaining about the deficit every since Obama took office, but backed the deficit continually for the 8 years Bush took it from a surplus to a an economic mess.

If any of you are left, feel free to discuss any of those points! :p

The Republican Party hasn't truly been for less government for years now. The notion has been dead ever since Gingrich's "Republican Revolution" withered away.

Under Bush, you saw an alliance between the Religious Right, who currently dominate the party, and the Neo-Conservatives, who controlled the White House. Neither faction consider limiting government as one of their primary goals.

i thought Regan and the neo-cons was the beginning of the end of the Republican Party....


The current republican party is so far from what is traditionally considered conservative it's funny....

The Republican Party is as far away from traditional political conservatism as the Democratic Party is from traditional political liberalism.

Next election...I'm voting for Ted Nugent.

extremism in a political party is generally near the end of the party's existence. Its a big machine, but the wheels are coming off. Its nice to see since they've so badly screwed 95% of this country over.

Conservative and Liberal are such fluid terms that it's hard to say that someone is no longer either of them. Both of them are defined on a regional basis in a manner that essentially amounts to "Person A calls himself a conservative/liberal. Therefore we can define what conservative/liberal means by describing Person A".

To say that someone has moved away from what is traditional for either of these political labels is ridiculous. My assumption is that what most people view to be the "traditional" outlook of these two labels is what it was when they were very young (whenever that was in the last 50 years). However, both of these labels have been associated with both sides of nearly every major political issue at some point in the last 200 years. I can guarantee that at whatever point in time you believe truely traditional conservatism/liberalism existed, they could have had this same debate about how those associated with those labels had moved away from the traditional outlook for that label from 20, 30 or 50 years earlier.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I'd say what is and is not "Republican" is up for debate. I consider myself conservative. I believe in original intent interperetations of the Constitution, I'm pro-life, pro defense spending but believe the government should spend a lot less. I'm anti-"bring home the bacon" and think the fat needs to be trimmed out of a lot of this BS. However I am NOT one of these "tax cuts are the answer for every solution ever and government intervention is the devil!" people. I lean towards being in favor of states rights on many issues. I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the Keith Olbermann/Ed Shultz type liberals. I think the Obama health care bill is unconstitutional. As far as conservative Presidents my views likely most closely resemble Teddy Roosevelt.

However I'm not a psychotic idiot like the Libertarians and Confederates that make up the Tea Party are and disassociate myself from them whenever I get the chance. In high school I considered myself pretty far to the right, however my opinions haven't changed and most would now consider me a moderate.

Vote Tea Party!

ORKIN: I'm intrigued by a couple statements there...

"I think the Obama health care bill is unconstitutional. As far as conservative Presidents my views likely most closely resemble Teddy Roosevelt."

These two being beside each other confuse me, so I'm going to point out why and then let you respond.

The health care law is certainly a big step towards increased government involvement and increased government regulation. Many of Roosevelt's ideas were for increased government and increased regulation, and in fact, when he later ran against both Taft and Wilson in 1912, it was under his own Progressive "Bullmoose" Party, which advocated for increased government regulation, most notably in the financial sector.

Of course, in modern terms, this idea of increased regulation in the financial sector sounds more like a liberal or Democratic ideal than a Republican ideal. So in this way, to consider yourself a Conservative or Republican who most closely associates his attitudes with the Presidency of Teddy Roosevelt just seems contradictory. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I generally thought of my self as moderate-conservative in HS, but as I learned more about politics and whatnot I find myself leaning a bit more left. Keep in mind that by growing up in Canada, my idea of conservative is probably close to lining up with Ralph Nader....



I think the whole US healthcare bill is a bit of a farce in that it doesn't do enough; It should have been done much more like Canada; with the resources, population density, etc etc that the US have, they should be able to take Canada's healthcare system and improve upon it.

At the same time I believe in balanced budget; the government shouldn't be ALLOWED to run a deficit for more than 2 years out of 10 (to account for some recessions etc) unless during a period of TOTAL war (not this Iraq/Afghanistan stuff), and must have net balanced budget over that time. Canada had a surplus for a number of years before the last 2 or 3 years, and Clinton had eliminated the deficit. This in my opinion, is a hallmark of the term conservative, being fiscally responsible. Unfortunately for both the US and Canada, our conservative parties don't seem to think so. (the liberals got rid of the deficit, the conservatives created one, similar to in the states).


I am also pro-nuclear, though that has more to do with it being cheap, good for the environment, higher-tech stuff, efficiency, and the fact that Canada should press forward in the nuclear field. This is something that both conservatives and liberals have to realize at some point, that if you want clean, cheap power on a large scale, nuclear is the way to go.


I think state/provincial rights are all very well and good, but they make the law much more fragmented; I'd tend to lean towards a stronger federal government.


Taxes are a useful and necessary tool; simplifying them is good, but making sure that you don't tax the poor out of existence, and tax those who can afford it makes sense imho. Once again I'd point to Canada as a good model, even though Americans on the high-end of the income scale would shudder. I think simplifying the tax code (in both countries, but america more so i understand) would *seriously* help almost everybody save more money, other than accountants who might get laid off as a result. But yes, taxes need to be raised/set to the point where you can afford your expenditure. Smaller government // responsible government good! smaller government == conservative imho, responsible government should be a general principle.

Pro-life is a bad term in my opinion. I wouldn't consider myself anti-life (life is pretty good you know), therefore i must be pro-life; but i would consider myself pro-abortion. The fact that an issue of religious morality even comes into politics is absurd imho; and it shouldn't be labelled as conservative or liberal, though it has because most of the religious fundamentalists have aligned themselves with the conservative elements.


I also believe in R&D for the military and space; these things keep industrial research going. I believe there should be tax cuts for corporations doing basic scientific research. I also believe that corporations, if they are treated as people under law, should have criminal penalties that result in their dismantling; and if a corporation is "too big to fail" then they need to be broken up or nationalized, as they undermine government control. This I guess is kindof liberal, but at the same time it kindof embraces free-market ideas as it's rationale... so kindof centrist maybe?

I also think that representatives (congressman/senator/MP/MLA) should have to sit through the full reading of a bill to be allowed to vote on it. This would encourage having small enough bills to be able to read through in a reasonable time frame. Things like this Obamacare would have to be split up into maybe 1 or 2 thousand individual smaller votes that way, which would be much more manageable. This, in effect, means smaller government, as you can't pass thousands of pages of bureaucracy-creating-fluff all at once; smaller government == conservative, imho :)





As an aside, while i'm on this rant, i think that penalties in law should be handed out on a percentage basis, not a flat rate; For example, these recent copyright infringement things have penalties of $750-$150k; these are extreme amounts for an individual, but nothing for a big corp. If instead they made it 20%-150% of assets+revenue then when a corporation violated these laws they'd really get slammed for it, just like the individual does. And class action lawsuits need to stop giving out "$7 per person who bought a rootkitted CD" http://en.wikipedia.org/...fornia_class_action_suits and be fined more like $1000 per CD + billing for removal of rootkits, assuming there was intent of course.

Yes I understand Teddy Roosevelt is not a Tea Party Liberatarian conservative. I am very pro-environment/anti pollution in my opinions. I also am pro-regulation as far as monitoring what the financial sector is doing. I am also very hawkish when it comes to the military and defense. So I knew what I was saying when I said my views closely resemble Teddy Roosevelt.

The reason I think the healtch care bill is unconstitutional is because the government is forcing you to make a purchase (or levying a tax depending on how the administration feels like arguing it any given day) simply for existing. All other licensure and taxation is predicated upon a choice. We require auto insurance, but you don't have to pay auto insurance if you choose not to drive. We have an income tax but you don't have to pay that if you decide not to work. THIS particular bill forces every man, child and woman into a system simply because they have been born and they exist. I think this violates the principle of undue burden and thus the mandatory component of the health care bill = unconstitutional. There has never ever been an existance tax in the history of the United States up until this point.

"Pro-life is a bad term in my opinion. I wouldn't consider myself anti-life (life is pretty good you know), therefore i must be pro-life; but i would consider myself pro-abortion. The fact that an issue of religious morality even comes into politics is absurd imho; and it shouldn't be labelled as conservative or liberal, though it has because most of the religious fundamentalists have aligned themselves with the conservative elements."

Not to turn this into an abortion debate but I am pro-life for strictly non-religious reasons. The idea that a woman's right to control her body outweighs the right to LIFE of another human being is extremely ludicrous.

What life? You don't get a birth certificate til you're out of the womb. Furthermore, it is literally a part of her body. It is her life. She can have her appendix removed if she wants.

It is not part of her own body. If it was part of her body it would have her DNA and it does not. The whole arguement of a birth certificate is just as ridiculous as those who say life begins at conception. Both are retarded markers for the point at which life begins.

It is part of her body. That is why it is cut off =P

I do agree that the birth certificate argument is realistically equally as foolish as conception, however birth is when you are legally recognized as a person. I know that some laws sort of acknowledge fetus as a person for example in cases of homicide, but I don't know that previous legislation is really an intelligent way to determine anything other than precedent. I am just saying legally that is when you are a person. You aren't 18 until 18 years out of the womb.

Really what I think makes the most sense is once something is conscious, it has the right to life. When that begins is not completely defined. Here is a basic Scientific American article on the topic which suggests that 24-28 weeks into gestation (so third trimester) is when that development begins. I am not someone who believes abortion is alright the day before birth, but using only this article as my citation for when something becomes more than just a tumor-like mass, the first two trimesters I think the woman has a complete right to have an abortion.

We remove parasites which are either part or not of somebody's body and have different DNA; because it is human DNA it is so much more special?


But that's not the point; it's not PRO- or ANTI- *life*, because *life* is kindof a generic term.


If you are allowed to put down animals like cats and dogs, you should be able to abort humans while they have frontal lobes of similar sizes, for relative levels of conciousness.



But away from the abortion debate.



I agree with Orkin on this:

"because the government is forcing you to make a purchase "

Of course I don't know how the public system is going to work buut....

There should be public "insurance" that you *don't have to pay for* through any means other than the usual income tax IE out of the general government budget; ie make most essential procedures & items & visits covered by the government. This allows every man woman and child to have free health care even if they have no income. I think you should then be able to purchase *additional* health care plans on top of that (a la Canada) that cover additional things &etc&etc.


Kindof like social security. You just get it.

I wasn't arguing what is or isnt currently legal. Just what my opinion on the subject is. IMO in this day and age once it reaches the stage at which is has brain waves at 6 weeks then it should be too bad so sad for the mother. There is ZERO reason an unwanted pregnancy should go beyond that marker when you can pretty much get free day after pills in the case of a mistake/rape etc...

After it becomes a fetus an abortion should only be allowed when the mother faces an impossible choice of her life vs the fetus's.

qzjul: A system where the government simply pays for everyone's healthcare out of it's budget from income tax would not be unconstitutional IMO. I simply believe the current system of you buy insurance or pay an extra tax because you exist is.

One more thing, for the record I support catastrophic health care coverage for all. You get sick from a pandemic or develop cancer or AIDS or something like that I have no problem with my tax dollars footing the bill. However you need to pay for your own routine checkups, dental work etc....

hmm hmm hmm...I think I'll leave this one alone...for now :-)

Im with Orkin on this abortion situation. If a woman does not want a pregnancy, then use birth control. do not wait for a child to start developing and then murder him or her.

ORKIN: Thanks for clarifying on the Roosevelt thing. :)

On abortion, I'm continually becoming more and more "pro-life" to use the term we all despise. However, I think it's one of those things that must have exceptions, and that change back towards a more pro-life agenda must be step-by-step.

That's probably the one issue where I most have trouble standing up for either side, as I find the correct moral choice in special cases even to be a really gray area--for instance, if you have a case of rape or incest, and a girl becomes pregnant, which is more morally problematic--forcing this girl to carry a child for 9 months and go through the trauma of delivery, something that should be a joyous occasion, when it's really just a constant reminder of the terrible crime that was perpetrated upon her? Or is it better to kill this innocent life (if you're of the belief that life begins at conception)?

It seems like Evil Choice A vs. Evil Choice B.

Because of that, I usually abstain from any type of discussion on abortion, but since this one is pretty civil so far, here I am, getting involved. :P

See, the problem with that Orkin, is that if you skip routine checkups or dental work, it ends up costing MUCH more on the long run; there have been numerous studies and demonstrations of this. You save everybody involved a ton of money if you just catch problems early. The very basic level of stuff that catches problems early should be free simply from the "save money in the long run" perspective.

I would prefer manditory abortion for people who can't demonstrate they can afford to raise a child over banning abortion completely....

(well okay maybe not, before i get flamed for that ^^ but I think if somebody wants to get an abortion they should be allowed, as there are many cases where not doing so can really mess somebody's life up, and consequently mess up the child's life too)

Wow...I kinda see where you're coming from with that, Qzjul...but I think it's harsh.

What if a woman/couple had good jobs and planned an "approved" pregnancy, but say that in her 2nd trimester she developed complications that required her to be restricted to bed rest and/or the household income went down the crapper because of a lay-off? Should that woman be forced to go through an abortion then?

If you're referring to those that seem to pop out kids left and right just to get on welfare and have the government provide for their kids instead of trying to support themselves and their families..then I can better see your point, but still think that's too drastic a measure.

too late, Qzjul :-P

heh darn; but yes, that was kindof what i was referring to; the problem with that is exactly as you said, it's too hard to implement, and would stir up quite a ruckus

Yeah...I don't see that getting much support from either side of the fence lol ;-)

abortion shouldn't be a political issue, and making a vote based on which party offers what abortion legislation would be completly absurd to me.

Using that to help differentiate candidates is fine Dragonlance. Although it probably shouldn't be a driving force.

"That's probably the one issue where I most have trouble standing up for either side, as I find the correct moral choice in special cases even to be a really gray area--for instance, if you have a case of rape or incest, and a girl becomes pregnant, which is more morally problematic--forcing this girl to carry a child for 9 months and go through the trauma of delivery, something that should be a joyous occasion, when it's really just a constant reminder of the terrible crime that was perpetrated upon her? Or is it better to kill this innocent life (if you're of the belief that life begins at conception)?

It seems like Evil Choice A vs. Evil Choice B."

The problem I have with calling it evil choice A vs evil choice B is there is good choice A before either of those choices would have to be made. Girls have access to free/cheap anonymous birth control these days. They do not need to inform their parents to get the day after pill etc... If this girl allows this baby to have a functioning brain aka aproximately six weeks then IMO that's just too bad for the girl. She has zero excuse regardless of what happened to her for her to allow it to develop that far if she dosn't want it.

Dang, Orkin...That's the biggest load of crap I've read in quite a while.

I was brought up going to Church. I consider myself a very devout Christian and am typically very open about my faith. However, I rarely go to church anymore. One of the main reasons for that is this very issue of abortion.

You see, I have a friend who I've known my whole life. We grew up going to the same Church and were both the type of Christian kids who would try to let our friends into that by doing bible studies or prayer groups or whatever after school. The kind of thing that's rarely successful in high schools, but there's always a couple kids trying to make happen... that was us.

Then she got pregnant. The guy wanted her to have an abortion. I think that she would have done it, except that there was a lot of pressure from people at our church for her not to. They were convinced that she ought to carry the kid to term. That's what she chose to do.

Of course, after the kid was born she was an unwed mother inside a church. Suddenly, she couldn't work with kids at sunday school, couldn't lead bible studies, wasn't invited to anything that was going within the church. She came to services on Sunday mornings and that was tolerated -- and tolerated is the right word -- but that was it. She became a social pariah within the Church community. She stopped going.

Up until that point, our church had been the most important support she had in her life. She'd given everything she had to this church. But now, when she needed help, it shunned her. I got pissed off. I yelled at a few people over the whole thing (though I missed the ones that most needed it, those who'd convinced her not to have an abortion) and ended up leaving the church myself. The story goes on, and the reasons why I don't go to Church often anymore are in that story. But my point is in what I've already written.

If you are going to tell a woman that she can't have an abortion, you had better be damned ready to support her once she has that baby.

This is my biggest issue with the abortion debate. The people who most vehemently oppose abortion also tend to be the people who have the least interest in helping a mother who's made the choice to have a baby as they advocate.

In my opinion, the government will never be able to provide the kind of support that a struggling mother needs to raise a child. Therefore, the government has no right to say that anyone should not have an abortion.

Having said that, I believe that there are groups that can provide that kind of support. Churches ought to be one of these groups. They ought to be able to take a struggling mother, support here emotionally, physically and financially and help her to raise a child. There are even individual people in the world who are secure enough to be able to provide that level of support. If you can, I have no problem with you telling an expectant mother that you think she shouldn't have an abortion. But you had better take that mother and that child and treat them as a member of your own family. If you don't, you've commit a horrible crime.

This is why I can't tell anyone not to have an abortion. I can't provide that security for them. It's also why I will never have any respect for someone who stands outside an abortion clinic holding a sign, and thinks they've done something great for the world.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Fooglmog: I know what you're talking about. Churches are often comprised of very intolerant unforgiving people. I grew up in a hardcore church that even those people couldnt handle :P

All of your reasoning sounds great. But ultimately we are talking about life and death for the child. Not convenience vs inconvenience. For the mother it's a choice between what is harder/more stressful. For the baby it is a choice between a hard life vs NO life. I feel for the mother and hate those that would judge and persecute her like that especially at a church, however I also feel for the life of the child and do not know a single person who would choose non existance over a hard life.

Moreover, technology has moved this debate past the point of late decisions. You can take a morning after pill which you can get for FREE from Planned Parenthood and other organizations anonymously and never have to worry about an unwanted pregnancy. As I stated there simply is not an excuse to have a baby you don't want at 6 weeks. You can stop it from ever becoming more then a few disorganized cells anonymously and for free. Many pro-choice advocates act like we are still in the era of girls with coathangers in back alleyways.

Yea, but a cat is more intelligent than a child before birth, yet we allow them to be put down in circumstances when they are not wanted; why should we distinguish based on species? I would like to think absolute level of consciousness & intelligence should be the deciding factor, and fetus's have demonstrably close to zero of either before third trimester, and little even at that point.

What if they only discover they're pregnant like 1.5 months in? it happens.... sometimes it happens even later than that

Nixon was the first prez I voted for. And Regan, Bush (older one) and even the younger bust THE FIRST TIME. I'm no longer a republican... I'm pro life... But consider killing people for oil or for a capital crime to be wrong... So I'm not a democrate although I voted for Oboma in the last election and fortold the problems he was going to have with people with short memorys that blame the current woes on the sitting president.... My sister hates him because he gave all that money to AIG! LOL! Thats really typical.... :)

"What if they only discover they're pregnant like 1.5 months in? it happens.... sometimes it happens even later than that"

If you have sex that you believe had the possibility of making you pregnant you take the DAY AFTER pill. Then there is no risk of finding out you are pregnant 1.5 months later....

Orkin, the reason that I'm inclined to dismiss your point of view is because it exculpates you entirely from personal responsibility.

You clearly believe that abortion is wrong. However, you allow that it ought to be permitted for the first 6 weeks of a pregnancy. I don't see why. It seems no more valid to me to cut off abortions at 6 weeks than at three days, that that's when the cascade that causes human life has begun, or 28 weeks, that that's when the baby is viable extrarius of the womb.

All of these arguements have always struck me as being based on what an individual's conscience can handle, rather than any rational justification for that time to be the point at which a fetus is truly a human life. Just like some people can't stand the thought of killing something with finger nails, you can't stand the thought of killing something that may have a level of awareness. I think it's all bollocks.

I can understand the arguement that a woman has the right to choose until the birth of the child. I can also understand the arguement that from the moment of conception, this is a human life and ought to be treated as such.

I cannot understand the middle ground. The only rational reason I can come up with for its existance is that there's people who've decided (based on whatever reasoning they've stumbled upon) that abortion is wrong, but don't want the responsibility associated with giving a woman no choice. So they find a position that their conscience can handle where they can oppose abortion without feeling any personal responsibility.

Maybe I'm wrong and being unfair in characterizing you this way Orkin, but I can't help but be a little cynical about the motives behind a moral arguement that stops just on the cusp of demanding action from the person making it.

I believe that abortion is wrong. But I will not tell someone that they need to make the sacrifices inherent in having a child in order to satisfy my morality -- especially if I'm not willing to make any sacrifices myself. However, I will tell someone the sacrifices that I'm able and willing to make to help them if they do decide to have the child, and hope that they find it to be enough to have that child.

Not all morality needs to be legislated. Abortion legislation has never been terribly effective anyway. I'm convinced that we can do better by supporting mothers than by trying to impose upon them. The issue is, it requires us as individuals to take responsibility, instead of handind a wad of cash to someone else to deal with it and patting ourselves on the back for having done the "right thing".

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

"I can understand the arguement that a woman has the right to choose until the birth of the child. I can also understand the arguement that from the moment of conception, this is a human life and ought to be treated as such."

We draw arbitrary lines based on our understanding ALL of the time. In our personal lives, in our government, everywhere. I make the arguement that at six weeks when the fetus has a functional brain which is what makes all of us "us" that it has become a person. Prior to that is is just a glob of cells. Using the science of baby development to make an arbitrary line based on our understanding is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Holding to the lines based on NOTHING which are conception and actual birth are the ones I don't understand because again, they are based on semantics and primitive understanding and not science/rational arguement.

"I believe that abortion is wrong. But I will not tell someone that they need to make the sacrifices inherent in having a child in order to satisfy my morality"

And this is why you are not intellectually consistant and are quite frankly very hypocritical. We make these requests of people ALL THE TIME in many facets of legislation and government. No one's rights are absolute, every single one of YOUR rights is weighed against the rights of other people and your rights are curtailed where other people's rights outweigh your own. Do you also believe it was unconstitutional to draft America's young men to go to their deaths and fight in World War II under penalty of death for desertion if they did not? Why is it fair for a government to be able to ask something like that of men but not fair for them to ask women to carry a baby to term if they choose not to use early termination methods which would 100% prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place? Rereading it I know I am now sounding cynical but I find the hyperventilation over forcing a woman to carry a baby to term vs her right to kill a an unborn child as some sort of unassailable right on her part when there is another human life involved besides her own to be ridiculous.

"Yea, but a cat is more intelligent than a child before birth, yet we allow them to be put down in circumstances when they are not wanted; why should we distinguish based on species?"

And why don't we all get in a ditch shove berries up our noses and throw poo at each other? Because we live in a human civilization where human life is valued at a premium. If you think cats and dogs should have equal rights to humans that's your perogative I guess.

Again fooglmog, you can feel sorry for the woman till the cows come home. But HER life is not the one hanging in the balance. We cannot make life equitable for every single person. Some are going to draw bad lots and the woman you described in your story certainly drew a fluffty one. But again we are weighing the mother having a difficult life vs the baby having no life at all. I'm sure these mothers now facing this difficult choice would not want to have been aborted themselves just because their life is now hard.

Heh, obviously I don't believe they should have the same rights; just that (some) people treat them *hugely* different, when they are not necessarily different in anything other than potential at the very early stages. I agree with your "a functional brain which is what makes all of us "us" that it has become a person. Prior to that is is just a glob of cells" but from what i've read and understood it's quite a bit beyond that that that you get most of the significant brain structures appearing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...rain_development_timeline

Orkin, I know the arguement for six weeks. You don't need to make it again. I think it's weak. Frankly, I think that either 28 weeks or 3 days would work much better as demarcation points if we needed them. I also disagree with your assessment that birth and conception are based on primitive understanding. I'd suggest that they're both far more precise and scientific than consciousness. You can look and see if a baby is born, or if conception has taken place. You can only guess as to whether awareness exists based upon measurements of brain development. I could make the full arguement again, but it's not worth it. I've given my point of view on this issue and so have you. Everyone who reads this can decide if they agree with you that six weeks is the point at which a fetus becomes a person, or if they agree with me and think that you've made that association in the same way that others decide its a person when it has finger nails or hair.

Most of the next section is non-sequiters and red herrings. I won't waste anybody's time discussing what's legal (constitutional) in a debate that's about what the law should be. I will, however, response to the accusation that I'm being hypocritical. You see, it doesn't hold water... because everyone can scroll up a couple messages and read what I've actually said in context. To make it clear, I'll summarize your arguement and mine.

My arguement:

"Abortion is wrong but making it illegal would not be productive. The most effective means of curtailing it would be to provide a level of support to mothers that alleviates the pressures pushing them towards abortion in the first place. I think that anyone unwilling to help facilitate this support does more harm than good by ostracizing those who consider abortion".

Your arguement:

"Abortion is wrong, because it's stopping a person from becoming a person. Therefore, we should make abortion illegal. But it's not a person until six weeks after it starts moving towards being a person because I think it's not a person until the fetus has a functional brain which is what makes all of us "us". So abortion then should be legal."

I'll let others determine if either of these arguements is hypocritical.

Here's a couple questions to you though Orkin:

1. Early contraception is not available universally. Morality is not an amero-centric issue and we need to consider the rest of the world. In much of the world, morning after pills are not readily available and pregnancy may not be determined until much later than 6 weeks. Is 6 weeks still the cut off for when abortion is moral?

2. You compared the sacrifice of women bearing a child to the sacrifice of conscripts in WWII. If this comparison is reasonable, why would it be unrealistic to expect a personal sacrifice from yourself in the same spirit as the entire nation sacrificed during WWII?

I may have more later, depending on how you respond to these. Enjoy!

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

The conservitives say they are against bigger government and taxes.... But they are pro big business and tax breaks for THEM! They cut the budjet by cutting programs to help the poor, unfirm and children! The close schools and librarys and fire teachers.... They give tax breaks to rich people to send their kids to a school so they don't have to pass a metal detector to get to school or have lockdowns and locker searchers without a warrent.... Public schools are run like prisons now and the private ones like spas.... Anyone that makes less than 120k a year and votes republican can't see though the propagana and will vote our county into a dicatorship.... They talk freedom and democacy and continue to take away our rights to fight terror... They invade other countys and think that killing women and children with a remote controlled plane is "acceptible" ....

...

Not really.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

If you believe any of this makes the Republicans worse than the Democrats, then you are really naive. Both parties are completely out of touch. Both parties cater to corporations and the rich. The poor can't hire lobbyists or support reelection PAC's.

corporations should not be able to fund politicians campaigns beyond what an individual could expect to; and all financing should be publicly disclosed, and limits on advertisement and whatnot should be put in place.

The problem is that you need to have stupid amounts of money to do well in the states, and you only get stupid amounts of money from the wealthy, and end up owing them favours.

Kindof like what we have in canada with Elections Canada.... http://www.elections.ca/...on=fin&document=index

just nothing left to conserve.

They're still posting on the jolt boards. They didn't like the idea of change.

Point. Set. Match.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.