Iowa Caucus results

z31maniac wrote: Because you presented it as fact vs someone's opinion.

Let's see...

Previous page- 10 posts (Oh my- postwhoring again!)

Including, in order:

SVreX wrote: I would bet that... I find this... I find it... I am assuming... I have a different view... I don't think... I don't think... I don't think he'd... I think he'd be... I was referring to... I'd say...

So, the truth is I used more personal opinion lead-ins than the total post count. I can't find anywhere where I claimed something as fact.

I think you need to read more carefully.

Or were you just grandstanding?

I pretty much discredited you when you brought up "genocidal" in an abortion debate.

SVreX wrote: Maybe in theory, but not in practice. Any idea how many pregnant women are counseled that adoption is an option? How about honest information about the factual health risks of abortion? Ongoing emotional impact? If tax dollars are involved as "health care", the option of not having an abortion is often treated like a religious viewpoint which can't be advocated. It is theoretically always an option, but functionally can sometimes border on genocidal in it's implementation.

Not trying to be a jerk, and definitely not trying to reopen the abortion issue, but I don't see too many "I think" or "I believe" or "I feel" clauses in that post. This is pretty much stated as fact, which is I believe why you were asked to back it up with numbers.

In reply to Duke:

There are quite a few more questions than assertions in that quote. If one feels the (alleged) assertions are stated as facts, one can always find their own source and provide the link(s) to dispute them.

Or, one can voice an opinion to the contrary like "I think Duke and z31maniac have strong feelings about a certain topic that leads them to biased conclusions about a previous post."

SVreX wrote: If tax dollars are involved as "health care", the option of not having an abortion is often treated like a religious viewpoint which can't be advocated. It is theoretically always an option, but functionally can sometimes border on genocidal in it's implementation.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Duke: There are quite a few more questions than assertions in that quote. If one feels the (alleged) assertions are stated as facts, one can always find their own source and provide the link(s) to dispute them.

The two second parts, which are the most strongly worded points of the post, are both assertions without question.

And the burden of proof is placed upon the one making the allegation, is it not?

93EXCivic wrote: I REFUSE to vote for anyone who is as social conservative as Santorum. I would vote for a libertarian though.

Don't worry, Ol' Frothy isn't going to last long, esp. since he doubles down on the derp every chance he gets. We all know how vehemently anti-LGBT he is. Now he's after us heteros, too:

Salon: Rick Santorum is against non-procreative sex -- even for married couples

And for those who find Salon too liberal, even the Daily Paul cites it:

http://www.dailypaul.com/200054/rick-santorum-wants-to-murder-scientist-and-is-against-non-procreative-sex

The only reason Santorum did so well in the Iowa caucus is because he's the not-Romney flavor of the month (eeewwww...). Social conservatives hate Romney for a myriad of reasons (flip-flopper, Mormon, not socially conservative enough, etc.), but right now he's the only Republican candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of being competitive with Obama during the presidential election.

In reply to SVreX:

I know of a few Liberals who would vote for Ron Paul due to his stance on drugs. They're also furious with Obama, but I get your point.

Also, I get busy and miss an important news item. Time to send Johnson some money

How is it that the minority of Republicans can vote into the Legislator a group of major nut jobs, but yet the majority of Republicans can't all settle on a single candidate?

Republican nut jobs? I seriously doubt they have anywhere the market owned that the loony liberals have.

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote: If tax dollars are involved as "health care", the option of not having an abortion is often treated like a religious viewpoint which can't be advocated. It is theoretically always an option, but functionally can sometimes border on genocidal in it's implementation.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Duke: There are quite a few more questions than assertions in that quote. If one feels the (alleged) assertions are stated as facts, one can always find their own source and provide the link(s) to dispute them.

The two second parts, which are the most strongly worded points of the post, are both assertions without question. And the burden of proof is placed upon the one making the allegation, is it not?

My intent was to point out that this thread is populated by strong assertions that have been readily accepted as opinions, at least until SVreX broached a certain subject.

It's a matter of interpretation but I don't see those assertions as less or more "factual" than opinions expressed by others. And I don't even agree with his entire premise.

BTW, what's stopping you from providing proof to back-up your own assertions? Just askin............

So I'll go on my own assumption spree, I think most of see the desire to make statements, presented as fact, then fall back on the desire to argue semantics.

I THINK, by virtue of responses in this thread and others, it is viewed as being intellectually dishonest............on that note, I will bow out of this thread, as I've said my peace.

MarkZ28 wrote: I wont vote for Paul unless hes the only one left to get Obama out. His foreign policy is nonexistant. He says he wont go to war for any reason basically, wants to be isolationist which never works, ask Wilson and FDR how that worked out.

He's a non interventionalist, not an isolationist. His foreign policy is that we don't need to be wasting money keeping a bunch of bases open, we don't need to get involved in more wars, and that Israel can take care of themselves.

The big 3 as to why your average "conservative" doesn't like him. The others being that he wants to cut spending and leave people the berkeley alone, even if they do something he doesn't like.

A little bit of honesty would sure go a long way.

I didn't bring up abortion. z31, e_pie, DILYSI Dave, BAMF, and ppddppdd ALL mentioned it on page 1 of this thread long before I did.

The truth is I simply said something a couple of people disagreed with, so they tried a personal attack.

But it was OK for e_pie to link Santorum with the Inquistion (perhaps for his Christian stance?), and mguar to link Republicans with homophobia.

Hypocrites. Quite a few of them here.

Though my perspectives and experiences may be different than some of you, at least I'm being honest. Some folks should open their minds.

oldsaw wrote: Or, one can voice an opinion to the contrary like "I think Duke and z31maniac have strong feelings about a certain topic that leads them to biased conclusions about a previous post."

Thank you, oldsaw.

SVreX wrote: But it was OK for e_pie to link Santorum with the Inquistion (perhaps for his Christian stance?),

In e_pie's defense, that was more of a reference to my statement of I didn't expect Santorum and was a play on the Monty Python bit.

My problem with Santorum is he seems to care to much about the social issues and not the economic problems that I think are much more important at this point. Add in the fact he takes this to a new level and wants to get rid of birth control. I can't vote for that man. He just wants to much interference into the bedroom and people's body. I know you are a strong Christian and I understand your problems from that point of view with some things about the current but I can't agree with you and I believe while certain things should change (like trying to get people to consider adoption over abortion) that abortion should be outlawed. I certainly have major problems with the anti gay view of Santorum. While I can understand problems with abortion (and I could even vote for a pro-lifer if they had a very good economic ideas) I can't vote for some one with the views towards the gay and lesbian community that Santorum has.

Wow, if what I said is a "personal attack" then I am just going to stay the hell out of political/religious threads entirely. Cheese and rice.

MarkZ28 wrote: Republican nut jobs? I seriously doubt they have anywhere the market owned that the loony liberals have.

I think that there are about an equal split of those.

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

Toyman01 wrote: Really, what difference does it make who wins. We're screwed no matter what. They are all politicians, they are lying through their teeth to get a vote. Once in office, it will be business as usual. Besides, congress is still full of vermin. Somebody get the Raid. Until honest to God statesmen get elected, we are just trading one worthless piece of crap for another. The best people for the job will never run for office. They aren't going to subject themselves or their families to the abuses of that nest of snakes.

Plus eleventy billion.

The Presidential election is only more misdirection 'LOOK OVER HERE! SEE THIS CIRCUS! AREN'T YOU ANGRY ABOUT THESE GUYS?!?!' while in the background Congress pisses away our grandkids' futures for the purpose of lining their own pockets. Makes me freakin' sick.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

plus some more. Toyman01 you pretty much summed up exactly how I feel about politics. They're all a bunch of liars.

93EXCivic wrote: I know you are a strong Christian and I understand your problems from that point of view with some things about the current but I can't agree with you and I believe while certain things should change (like trying to get people to consider adoption over abortion) that abortion should be outlawed. I certainly have major problems with the anti gay view of Santorum. While I can understand problems with abortion (and I could even vote for a pro-lifer if they had a very good economic ideas) I can't vote for some one with the views towards the gay and lesbian community that Santorum has.

I never said I was in support of Santorum. I'm not.

I also did not suggest outlawing abortion, nor contraception. I am not in favor of either of those. Speaking as someone who has used abortion as contraception, I'm not sure I have a lot to offer on this issue.

I am also not in favor of his position on gays. My opinion is that this issue should be put to rest and gay marriage legalized. Yes there is more to that...

There sure are a lot of things people "know" about me that I am unaware of myself. I learn a lot about being stereotyped on this forum.

SVreX wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I know you are a strong Christian and I understand your problems from that point of view with some things about the current but I can't agree with you and I believe while certain things should change (like trying to get people to consider adoption over abortion) that abortion should be outlawed. I certainly have major problems with the anti gay view of Santorum. While I can understand problems with abortion (and I could even vote for a pro-lifer if they had a very good economic ideas) I can't vote for some one with the views towards the gay and lesbian community that Santorum has.

I never said I was in support of Santorum. I'm not. I also did not suggest outlawing abortion, nor contraception. I am not in favor of either of those. Speaking as someone who has used abortion as contraception, I'm not sure I have a lot to offer on this issue. I am also not in favor of his position on gays. My opinion is that this issue should be put to rest and gay marriage legalized. Yes there is more to that... There sure are a lot of things people "know" about me that I am unaware of myself. I learn a lot about being stereotyped on this forum.

Sorry. That seemed to be what your post where indicating about abortion and I realized my post made it seem like I was talking about gay rights issue but I wasn't talking about you, I was referring to Santorum's position. I didn't do the best job of making my post clear.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

No problem. Forgiven.

I'm getting pretty used to being thoroughly misunderstood around here.

Thanks for manning up. I respect that.

Sorry if I said something unclear.

Just my $0.02 as someone who does feel abortion should illegal in every case, The fact that Santorum wasn't dead last completely confounds me. Agreeing with him on that one point doesn't make anything else that comes out of his mouth acceptable.

MG Bryan wrote: Just my $0.02 as someone who does feel abortion should illegal in every case

Just mild curiosity, but does your personal view of this also extend to rape victims?

In reply to Javelin:

How about - Can a girl take a morning after pill immediately after she is raped by a close relative and will die during childbirth if the pregnancy is continued?