Ron Paul ignored.

[Minimalist]

That's like asking us to pick one favorite turd out of a full cesspool.

They are all pretty much alike except Romney who even republicanuts are smart enough not to trust.

[reverendjeremiah]

So which Republican candidate does everyone prefer over Ron Paul? I admit to liking Huntsman, but he has even less of a chance than Paul.

Ive had questions like this thrown at me before.

I would not vote for ANY of the scum, but if I was forced, then I might as well vote the worse of the worse

Bachmann / Paul

that way everything is sped up.. we go back into another Depression because these two will tip everything so far to the right. When that happens the popularity of Socialism and Syndicalism will rise DRAMATICALLY...then we can have another return to the Progressive Era.

[Mister Agenda]

That's actually the scenario that seems the most likely to produce the results you're hoping for. And I'm sure you meant 'wouldn't', I don't think you're a scum-voting kinda guy.

---

That's like asking us to pick one favorite turd out of a full cesspool.

They are all pretty much alike except Romney who even republicanuts are smart enough not to trust.

Fair enough, I only asked because this thread is about a specific GOP candidate, and the other GOP candidates are the context for comparison.

[paintpooper]

Yes lets induce anarchy! Progressives for Palin!!!!!!!

[Mister Agenda]

Yes lets induce anarchy! Progressives for Palin!!!!!!!

Imagine the confusion!

[The Grand Nudger]

I have a sneaking suspicion that any republican candidate that found themselves backed by progressives publicly and early would lose a significant portion of their traditional voter base (as well as being target number one for the other republican candidates). After all, if you were the type of person who'd vote Palin, wouldn't you start to get suspicious when those dirty liberals started plugging her? I can see it now, a one liner utterly destroying any chance she had.

"9/10 progressives prefer Palin"

::bells tolling in the distance::

[Autumnlicious]

I fear for your scenario backfiring dramatically, wherein all the batshit conservatives go "Oh, even the liberals are kowtowing to us! Bring on more Jesus cock sucking batshit!!11eleventy1!!"

[reverendjeremiah]

I have a sneaking suspicion that any republican candidate that found themselves backed by progressives publicly and early would lose a significant portion of their traditional voter base (as well as being target number one for the other republican candidates). After all, if you were the type of person who'd vote Palin, wouldn't you start to get suspicious when those dirty liberals started plugging her? I can see it now, a one liner utterly destroying any chance she had.

"9/10 progressives prefer Palin"

::bells tolling in the distance::

Actually that worked. Palin lost most of her appeal by, well, just by opening her mouth and letting it do its own thing.

Of course, neocons tried to say we on the left were twisting her words. No we werent. We were quoting her exactly and not even adding commentary to it. SNL didnt even have to come up with a script to parody her. They just copied what she said and it was enough to bring the house down.

Also, people who were opposed to right wing politics would say things like "Leftists for Palin 2012 - guarentee a win for Progressives in America!" all over Yahoo. Even though Yahoo is SWARMING with greedy and hateful right wing shit holes, it was still a common thing for a leftist to agree with the neo-cons that Palin should run for the republican nomination. LOL.

Example conversation:

greedy neo-con: "Youre a sexist. You dont like Palin because she is a woman"

Me: "LOL...Palin is an airhead."

Greedy bastard GOP: "You are wrong. Palin is one of the smartest on the board. smarter than Obama."

Me: "Left wingers for Palin 2012"

Fundy neocon: "You dont support Palin for President"

Me: "I want her to be on the Republican ticket...its a sure fail for you greedy bastards."

---

I fear for your scenario backfiring dramatically, wherein all the batshit conservatives go "Oh, even the liberals are kowtowing to us! Bring on more Jesus cock sucking batshit!!11eleventy1!!"

They say that anyways, and they act like that anyways...and LOL, some members on this forum actually vote for these Jesus slurping greed mongers.

Sadly, I voted for Obama...he is one of them as well.

Im not voting dem or rep next time around...Ill write in "anarchy" or something.

[Tiberius]

Is there really a right to that? Really? When there is an unborn child inside it? What about the rights of the unborn child? These are all questions that need answers before you can talk about those so-called "rights". When there are conflicting rights, whose get special treatment? Leaving it up to the states is a great idea lets people decide for themselves, rather than have such an issue decided by 9 people.

Gosh R, I guess you are right. If a woman gets raped, then she must be forced to carry to term.

Sometimes I think you intentionally misinterpret my posts in order to make a scene. In no way did I make a statement which even alludes to forcing raped women (or any woman) to carry to term. Those are your words; stop putting them in my mouth.

What I did do was ask questions. Very important questions that should be addressed before we condemn what is effectively an innocent child to death. Abortion is a matter of conflicting rights; the rights of the child versus the rights of the woman. Whose rights get special treatment? In America, the rights of the woman always come before the child. As far as I am aware (and please correct me if I am mistaken), any woman can go and get an abortion. The careless youth is treated exactly the same as the innocent rape victim. I don't think that is right; I think that certain cases should qualify for immediate abortions (rape victims, women that are in some kind of danger from having a baby, etc), but the others should be ruled upon on an individual basis.

It is about the rights of the unborn baby involved..correct?

No, it's about the conflict of rights between the mother and the child. In some cases, the mother's rights should outweigh the child's; in other cases, the child's should outweigh the mother's.

Talk about a flip flopper. So walking, talking working people of a different skin color than the masses shouldnt have their rights voted to be protected, but unborn children in the womb is fine and dandy to vote on when it comes to protection rights.

So which is it with you...rights can be voted on, or rights cant be voted on?

No flip flop; just two completely different subjects. One is about rights in general; the other about what happens when rights come into conflict with each other. I contend that rights themselves cannot be held to a vote; should people lose their right to life if a court decides it? I don't think so. When two rights come into conflict (as they undoubtedly will at some point), what method should be used to distinguish who's rights are more important in that instance? It is a hard question to answer, but given that we live in a democracy, we usually find that similar issues are solved via a trial.

So, just in case you still misunderstand me: Rights cannot be voted on. Conflicts between rights can.

[reverendjeremiah]

Sometimes I think you intentionally misinterpret my posts in order to make a scene. In no way did I make a statement which even alludes to forcing raped women (or any woman) to carry to term. Those are your words; stop putting them in my mouth.

No. They are NOT the words you said. They are the eventual CONSEQUENCES of what your words may likely bring. Surely you understand the difference?
Allow me to explain the consequences of your words...

What about the rights of the unborn child?

If you are FOR the rights of the unborn child, then SURELY you make no difference between an accidental child, or the product of a rape. Unless you are NOT for them. Are you flip flopping again?

So which one is it? Do unborn children have rights or not..or just CERTAIN unborn children have rights and others dont. Stop flip flopping and make the call. Either you support rights for the unborn or you do not.

Example: I support the right of the OWNER of the womb (the individual woman) to be more important than what is in the womb, regardless of the circumstance, regardless of rape, and regardless of accident or not. The right of the woman to control her womb is immune to the opinons of those around her regardless of wether there is an unborn baby in it or not. regardless of the opinion of the unborn babies father or not. It is not up to the vote of the masses, or the father, or the in-laws, but ONLY up to the vote of the individual who owns the womb.

You, on the other hand, are splitting hairs about it. "unborn babies have rights!" vs. "I never said I was for forcing rape victims to carry to term". Well, if unborn babies have rights, then a woman cannot abort it merely because of a rape. To bad, so sad, the unborn baby's rights are superior to the mothers rights.

Your semantics arguments do nothing for you. It is not an "intentional misrepresentation" of your words. Again, it is you back tracking when you realize the results of your words have negative consequences on the masses and you are trying to bump them off onto me to avoid the stigma

Just like when you say something like "I support businesses right to placing 'whites only' signs on their windows". When I point out the mass negative consequences to such a belief, you will try to find some way to blame it on the one pointing out the consequences, not the one (you) supporting the tools required to actually cause said negative effects on society.

What I did do was ask questions. Very important questions that should be addressed before we condemn what is effectively an innocent child to death. Abortion is a matter of conflicting rights; the rights of the child versus the rights of the woman. Whose rights get special treatment? In America, the rights of the woman always come before the child. As far as I am aware (and please correct me if I am mistaken), any woman can go and get an abortion. The careless youth is treated exactly the same as the innocent rape victim. I don't think that is right; I think that certain cases should qualify for immediate abortions (rape victims, women that are in some kind of danger from having a baby, etc), but the others should be ruled upon on an individual basis.

You flip flop so many times in this I dont even need to individually point them out. So unborn babies are "innocent" and deserve rights..but apparently you do not think the product of a rape (which would STILL be an innocent baby) should have rights, or that these "rights" should be decided upon an individual case only. So if a white man accidently impregnates a white woman, then a judge can say "no abortion ruled". But if a black man accidently impregnates a white woman the judge can say "abortion awarded". Absolutely NO consistencies in your concept of rights. Just like in other posts. One moment you say "Rights should not be voted upon" then you flip flop again and say "these rights should be voted upon".
Go ahead and tell me I am wrong..that I am misinterpretting your words above on purpose.

As usual, your concepts of human rights are appaling and NOT well thought out. Seems like they are based more on emotional moments and personal views. And how are rights considered rights if they are ruled on an individual basis? Will some black people be allowed civil rights while, lets say darker black people will have their rights ruled upon by a judge on an individual basis? How about atheists? Will some of the atheists (the quiet ones) have their rights no questions asked, but the ones who open their big mouths will have their rights ruled on an individual basis?

Doesnt sound very anti-authoritarian, anarchist, or Libertarian to me.

No, it's about the conflict of rights between the mother and the child. In some cases, the mother's rights should outweigh the child's; in other cases, the child's should outweigh the mother's.

there is no "conflict of rights" in this situation. The unborn baby is CLEARLY a product of the mothers body. To argue that unborn babies have rights would be the same as to argue that sperm and eggs have rights as well....they are living organisms inside the human body just the same as an unborn baby. Masterbation would be murder. Menstruation would be murder.

Rights are not conditionary to other rights. Rights are all equal or they are not rights at all.

For someone who praises logic so highly I am suprised I have to point out the slippery slope you are advocating.