If Santorum wins the nomination...

[cybrsage]

All the people who picked Santorum in the poll are the partisan shills, apparently.

Many who picked Obama are partisan shills, too... unless they've expressed an alternative explanation for selecting Obama.

Your democrat partisanship is showing.

You already know I vote against incumbants, we have discussed it many times. Yet you pretend that means I must be a partisan shill if I would vote against the incumbant.

You pretend you are not a democrat partisan, then you make stupid democrat partisan statements which show otherwise.

 

[Thump553]

I agree, completely. Voting (and civic action) should in my opinion be based first on what is morally right, then on what is best for the country, then what is best for me individually. That said, while I agree with Atreus that abortion is murder or at least manslaughter, I am not anti-abortion for fetuses too young to survive outside the womb. That forces a woman to devote her body to nurture someone else against her will, and I think it is wrong for the state to do that. (And in the case of rape, heinously wrong.) Since I see no practical way to resolve that dichotomy, abortion for me is simply not a public policy issue, but strictly a private one. (Hey, just call me Mitt.) If the state cannot take an action without unduly removing someone else's rights, the state should not take that action. In other words, I disagree with Obama that the state should guarantee "positive rights", what it must do for you even at someone else's expense.

Very interesting, you independently used almost the exact same analysis the majority opinion did in Roe v. Wade. You should read the original court decision sometime, it's very well thought out and well presented.

 

[cybrsage]

Interestingly enough, they then said the right to kill the unborn is due to the right of privacy...

They should have found something at least related to the issue.

 

[CPA]

My brother is a 1 issue voter too. He is constantly voting against his best interest and it's a good thing I vote to cancel his out.

What's his best interest? Is it what's your best interest?

Best interest is subjective.

 

[dank69]

That's why I said... unless they've provided an alternative explanation.

Many alternative explanations are valid, including hating Santorum.

What the hell, man? You didn't ask for explanations in your OP. Do I really need to explain why I would vote for Obama over Santorum? I would vote for a houseplant over Santorum.

 

[werepossum]

A woman's rights aren't being removed, they're being subjugated to those of the baby. I don't see it as much different from other burdens the state (rightly) places on parents - the legal obligations to feed, clothe, house and protect their offspring. In essence, the state is guaranteeing positive rights to the child, and few seem to have a problem with that. I certainly don't.

As for the "against her will" part, pregnancy is a known result of sex. There's already been a ton written here about consent to sex vs. consent to become pregnant, so there's little point in revisiting it, but with the wide availablility of effective birth control, I can't accept that a person gets pregnant "against her will" unless she's raped. As for rape, it's a heinous crime, and both sides agree it should remain a crime. That being said, aborting any resulting fetus/baby seems to punish the wrong person.

Subjugating one's rights effectively removes them. I break out abortion simply because while parents are allowed to voluntarily give up a child, a pregnant woman does not have that choice; only she can support that baby until birth.

 

[zsdersw]

Your democrat partisanship is showing.

You already know I vote against incumbants, we have discussed it many times. Yet you pretend that means I must be a partisan shill if I would vote against the incumbant.

You pretend you are not a democrat partisan, then you make stupid democrat partisan statements which show otherwise.

You can vote against an incumbent by voting for a third-party candidate, too... it need not be the other major party candidate.

But no, you chose Santorum even though he's too socially conservative to win the general election... which means you're either supportive of Santorum for his positions or you always vote Republican for POTUS. Either way, you're a partisan shill.

If it was just about "anyone but Obama", you'd select the third poll option.

 

[werepossum]

Very interesting, you independently used almost the exact same analysis the majority opinion did in Roe v. Wade. You should read the original court decision sometime, it's very well thought out and well presented.

I've read it, and while I largely agree with the reasoning, I think it's rather muddled in its presentation. I have only one real objection to the Roe v Wade decision - I wish they had based it on private property rights (i.e. one owns oneself rather than being owned by the government) rather than on the right to privacy. Many abortions require no search; it's obvious to anyone what happened. I'd much rather have enshrined in law the concept that one owns oneself as that would have other desirable ramifications. (I can understand why SCOTUS as an integral part of government wanted to avoid giving up that power, I just don't agree with it.)

 

[zsdersw]

What the hell, man? You didn't ask for explanations in your OP. Do I really need to explain why I would vote for Obama over Santorum? I would vote for a houseplant over Santorum.

I didn't ask for explanations, yet many have chosen to offer some. Don't whine to me about your choice to not offer an explanation.

 

[dank69]

I didn't ask for explanations, yet many have chosen to offer some. Don't whine to me about your choice to not offer an explanation.

1. Apply sweeping generalization to a group of people.
2. Any objections to said generalization should be labeled as whining.

My eyes are about to roll out of my head here.

 

[Phokus]

So it looks like roughly 9 percent of ATPN is truly awful (at the moment).

 

[zsdersw]

1. Apply sweeping generalization to a group of people.
2. Any objections to said generalization should be labeled as whining.

My eyes are about to roll out of my head here.

That's fine, whatever creams your Twinkie.

 

[dank69]

That's fine, whatever creams your Twinkie.

So you don't understand that the process I just laid out for you is what you yourself just did, and think it is what I am doing? You are acting very uncharacteristically in this thread. Did cybr hack your account?

 

[zsdersw]

So you don't understand that the process I just laid out for you is what you yourself just did, and think it is what I am doing? You are acting very uncharacteristically in this thread. Did cybr hack your account?

No, I understand what you said... I just don't care, is all.

 

[dank69]

No, I understand what you said... I just don't care, is all.

That's unfortunate. I've always held you to a much higher standard than much of the riff raff around here.

 

[zsdersw]

That's unfortunate. I've always held you to a much higher standard than much of the riff raff around here.

It's true that many who selected Obama in the poll *are* partisan shills. They've demonstrated as much in other threads and offered no alternative explanation in this thread for their vote.

 

[dank69]

Okay, so you've revised your original statement:

...

Many who picked Obama are partisan shills, too... unless they've expressed an alternative explanation for selecting Obama.

which seems quite absolute that you think that Obama voters in this poll are partisan shills unless they explain their vote, to this:

It's true that many who selected Obama in the poll *are* partisan shills. They've demonstrated as much in other threads and offered no alternative explanation in this thread for their vote.

I have no problem with this statement. Thank you.

 

[soundforbjt]

IMO, I think the last thing we (as a country) need right now is a war with Iran. Santorum (and Willard & Newton as well) seems hell bent on letting this happen. I'd rather have someone with a cooler head (Obama) making this decision.

 

[dank69]

IMO, I think the last thing we (as a country) need right now is a war with Iran. Santorum (and Willard & Newton as well) seems hell bent on letting this happen. I'd rather have someone with a cooler head (Obama) making this decision.

No shit, heh. Fiscally conservative my ass. 'Let's engage in another war.' that should really help our balance sheet.

 

[zsdersw]

Okay, so you've revised your original statement:which seems quite absolute that you think that Obama voters in this poll are partisan shills unless they explain their vote, to this:

It's not a revision at all. I've consistently said "many" who picked Obama in the poll, and never said "all".

 

[shadow9d9]

It's not a question of practicality. I can't bring myself to vote for anyone who has no problem with abortion.

Are you for killing fully grown innocent humans? or is it just cell clumps with no brain matter that you care about?

 

[ky54]

Man, it would tough to vote for either Santorum or Obama. Both are religious ideologues (don't pretend that Obama sat there dumb as a rock for 20 years) and there is no room for compromise with either one. My most fervent hope is the Republicans hold the House and take the Senate and Obama wins reelection which is a possibility. That locks down our government and puts the brakes on either side heading too far in either direction. At that point we find out just exactly which side is most willing to piss off their base and stray over to the other side on things like the budget and checks Obama's penchant for spraying bombs all over the place. In my mind that's about the best we can hope for.

 

[Aikouka]

Atreus may feel very strongly about abortion being murder and realize that the two parties' candidates are very similar in other matters, bringing his vote to rest on that one issue.

The reasoning you mentioned above does not a single issue voter make. In that example, the person would be considering other issues, but the issues do not clearly distance one candidate from the other. A single issue ends up presenting one candidate as the viable choice (for that person), but it isn't the only thing considered.

I believe that Zin's problem relates to those that tend to look at only one (or possibly a few) "scare tactic" issue, and simply make their decision based on that.

I agree, completely. Voting (and civic action) should in my opinion be based first on what is morally right, then on what is best for the country, then what is best for me individually.

What defines "morally right" though? That same concept of forcing your morals through your political candidate is the reason why these candidates get away with spouting their religious beliefs during debates.

 

[cybrsage]

You can vote against an incumbent by voting for a third-party candidate, too... it need not be the other major party candidate.

But no, you chose Santorum even though he's too socially conservative to win the general election... which means you're either supportive of Santorum for his positions or you always vote Republican for POTUS. Either way, you're a partisan shill.

If it was just about "anyone but Obama", you'd select the third poll option.

You are not very good at trying to hide your democrat partisanship. According to you, anyone who would vote for Santorum over Obama MUST be a republican partisan. There can be no other reason because, well, because you are a democrat partisan hack.

 

[shadow9d9]

Define exactly how many cells are required for personhood. 2? 4? 10000? 1000000?

Doesn't matter if there is no brain matter formed...