Yup.

(10-10-2012 09:51 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Yup.

married?

Okay, this is getting weird. I indulged the first personal question out of curiosity, but now I see I'm in for a Socratic Method that I frankly have already lost interest in. Your posts are generally slow-burners and that's fine, but you'll have to forgive me for being uninterested in participating in a collaborative post/performance art piece with you.

If your point is a good one, I will assume it should have applicability regardless of the demographics of the listener. I just ask that you get to it.

My questions relate to the experiences that may manifest in different outlooks.

I do not wish to assume where you are coming from experientially, so I thought it prudent to ask.

Wow. Communist and Holocaust in one post. Welcome to my ignore list.

Quote:Obama has regularly celebrated single-motherhood (I don't recall hearing him talk about single fathers who try to raise their kids, but that's an issue most want to pretend doesn't exist, even though it is harder as you don't have the support systems that women do.)

In addition, Obama's general philosophy and far-left policies help promote easier family destruction by encouraging (here we go) murder of innocent children. Over 53 MILLION children have been murdered this way since (again, here we go) Roe v Wade removed states' rights. That's quite a few Holocausts.

As Barrett succinctly pointed out above, sympathizing and supporting single mothers is a far cry from celebrating broken families. Being a single father is equally important, and I highly doubt this omission was anything sinister.

Quote:Plus, by making it easier to dispose of these people who have no voices, Obama and the far left have reduced one of the primary functions of the family: reproducing and perpetuating the human race.

I do not understand this. The population of the Earth is over 7 billion and climbing. The human race is doing a fine (too fine?) job of reproducing and perpetuating the human race. The government is not advocating that abortions are mandatory - they are simply making the choice available. Your post speaks of liberty, freedom and choice - why do they not apply in this case?

In summary,

(10-11-2012 10:30 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:Plus, by making it easier to dispose of these people who have no voices, Obama and the far left have reduced one of the primary functions of the family: reproducing and perpetuating the human race.

I do not understand this. The population of the Earth is over 7 billion and climbing. The human race is doing a fine (too fine?) job of reproducing and perpetuating the human race. The government is not advocating that abortions are mandatory - they are simply making the choice available. Your post speaks of liberty, freedom and choice - why do they not apply in this case?

I guess this thread is about to take yet another turn.

Without taking a side,I note that one's viewpoint largely depends on whether one regards a human fetus as a human being. I presume GoodOwl takes the position that it is. In that case, it becomes a matter of who has the right to take a human life, why, and when.

I repeat: Without taking a side.

(10-11-2012 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 10:30 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:Plus, by making it easier to dispose of these people who have no voices, Obama and the far left have reduced one of the primary functions of the family: reproducing and perpetuating the human race.

I do not understand this. The population of the Earth is over 7 billion and climbing. The human race is doing a fine (too fine?) job of reproducing and perpetuating the human race. The government is not advocating that abortions are mandatory - they are simply making the choice available. Your post speaks of liberty, freedom and choice - why do they not apply in this case?

I guess this thread is about to take yet another turn.

Without taking a side,I note that one's viewpoint largely depends on whether one regards a human fetus as a human being. I presume GoodOwl takes the position that it is. In that case, it becomes a matter of who has the right to take a human life, why, and when.

I repeat: Without taking a side.

Actually, Id like to move it back on topic - didn't mean to start another tangent.

My issue with the post that I responded to above was the implication that Obama was somehow involved with the effects of Roe vs. Wade. RvW was a judicial decision based on the 14th amendment that passed by a majority of 7-2. Whether or not Obama supports the decision, has/had no bearing in the decision or outcome.

Thats all.

(10-11-2012 01:18 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 10:30 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:Plus, by making it easier to dispose of these people who have no voices, Obama and the far left have reduced one of the primary functions of the family: reproducing and perpetuating the human race.

I do not understand this. The population of the Earth is over 7 billion and climbing. The human race is doing a fine (too fine?) job of reproducing and perpetuating the human race. The government is not advocating that abortions are mandatory - they are simply making the choice available. Your post speaks of liberty, freedom and choice - why do they not apply in this case?

I guess this thread is about to take yet another turn.

Without taking a side,I note that one's viewpoint largely depends on whether one regards a human fetus as a human being. I presume GoodOwl takes the position that it is. In that case, it becomes a matter of who has the right to take a human life, why, and when.

I repeat: Without taking a side.

Actually, Id like to move it back on topic - didn't mean to start another tangent.

My issue with the post that I responded to above was the implication that Obama was somehow involved with the effects of Roe vs. Wade. RvW was a judicial decision based on the 14th amendment that passed by a majority of 7-2. Whether or not Obama supports the decision, has/had no bearing in the decision or outcome.

Thats all.

As a former single Dad, and as someone who experienced lifeboth before and after RVW, I can see points on both sides. That is why I emphasized that I was not taking a side.

I won't speak for GoodOwl, as he has amply demonstrated that he can speak for himself, but the argument these days seems to me to be whether to repeal RVW versus whether to maintain it it, and Obama has always come down squarely on the latter side. I see his uninvolvement in passing it as unimportant and irrelevant.

Supreme Court decisions are sometimes reversed by later courts.

I generally think debates are overrated in terms of importance (normatively and empirically) but this year may be an exception. Another crappy performance from Obama and we could look back at this as the point he lost re-election. A good one, and we could be back to where we were a couple weeks ago with Obama looking in good shape to win.

DailyKos/SEIU poll out showing Romney up 5 at 50%. A bit of an outlier but interesting that it comes from a pro-Obama group.

Round 2 goes to the Prez - although not as decisive a win as the first debate IMO. The national numbers might tighten up even a bit more if possible.

(10-16-2012 09:32 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Round 2 goes to the Prez - although not as decisive a win as the first debate IMO. The national numbers might tighten up even a bit more if possible.

I think we all lose from that debate. Watched about a minute of it and turned it off after the tone that was set. I don't need to watch these guys spin and be a-holes to each other. Not what we need.

(10-16-2012 09:34 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(10-16-2012 09:32 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Round 2 goes to the Prez - although not as decisive a win as the first debate IMO. The national numbers might tighten up even a bit more if possible.

I think we all lose from that debate. Watched about a minute of it and turned it off after the tone that was set. I don't need to watch these guys spin and be a-holes to each other. Not what we need.

It was like watching Olympic boxing. In fact more like women's Olympic boxing. A close contest as no one score many points.

Romney scored well on painting Obama as a failure dealing with the economy and all issues domestic, but let him off the hook on a technicality on foreign affairs.

Obama's best shot was after the bell when he painted Romney's 47% of the electorate dependent on government handouts as pensioners, veterans, and students. Not sure how much of the 47% that covers as Obama didn't mention the unemployed, long-term unemployed, and life-style unemployed.

At one point didn't Romney tell Obama to shut up and sit down (paraphrased)? Hilary couldn't have been happy about that.

And mentioning Hilary...why is she going for a retro Ben Franklin coif?

Mitt has "binders full of women".

And yet there's a gender gap.

(10-16-2012 09:34 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(10-16-2012 09:32 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Round 2 goes to the Prez - although not as decisive a win as the first debate IMO. The national numbers might tighten up even a bit more if possible.

I think we all lose from that debate. Watched about a minute of it and turned it off after the tone that was set. I don't need to watch these guys spin and be a-holes to each other. Not what we need.

I found that it became 50% less awkward when I switched from TV to radio. There's just nothing good that comes from watching one guy talk while the other struggles to keep as blank a stare as possible.

(10-17-2012 07:16 AM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(10-16-2012 09:34 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(10-16-2012 09:32 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Round 2 goes to the Prez - although not as decisive a win as the first debate IMO. The national numbers might tighten up even a bit more if possible.

I think we all lose from that debate. Watched about a minute of it and turned it off after the tone that was set. I don't need to watch these guys spin and be a-holes to each other. Not what we need.

I found that it became 50% less awkward when I switched from TV to radio. There's just nothing good that comes from watching one guy talk while the other struggles to keep as blank a stare as possible.

I could see that. But to me, it was all ridiculous and a complete waste of time.

Funny Romney pic from last night:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/20...?ref=fpblg

Wish I knew what point that was.

(10-16-2012 10:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Mitt has "binders full of women".

And yet there's a gender gap.

I friend of mine put this pretty well - yeah, the "binders full of women" memes going around the internet are funny, but the fact that a man who may very well be the next president of the United States answered a question about whether he supports equal pay for women with "well we need to let women go home early so they can cook dinner" is not funny at all...

(10-17-2012 01:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2012 10:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Mitt has "binders full of women".

And yet there's a gender gap.

I friend of mine put this pretty well - yeah, the "binders full of women" memes going around the internet are funny, but the fact that a man who may very well be the next president of the United States answered a question about whether he supports equal pay for women with "well we need to let women go home early so they can cook dinner" is not funny at all...

Wow, way to take that out of context.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/17...ook-dinner

(10-17-2012 01:05 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(10-17-2012 01:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2012 10:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Mitt has "binders full of women".

And yet there's a gender gap.

I friend of mine put this pretty well - yeah, the "binders full of women" memes going around the internet are funny, but the fact that a man who may very well be the next president of the United States answered a question about whether he supports equal pay for women with "well we need to let women go home early so they can cook dinner" is not funny at all...

Wow, way to take that out of context.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/17...ook-dinner

Actually, I don't think it's out of context at all. (Unlike the "you didn't build that" quote Mitt practically built his entire convention around.)