patrick.net

Dan8267 says

The only real news outlets are:
Daily Show
Colbert Report
NPR
RT News
and The Newsroom (US)

and three of them don't even call themselves real news.

Isn't is pretty sad when nearly all your sources of information come from the entertainment industry (no liberal or corporation bias there!) or government subsidized NPR?

socal2 says

Isn't is pretty sad when nearly all your sources of information come from the entertainment industry (no liberal or corporation bias there!) or government subsidized NPR?

1. It is pretty sad that "serious" news outlets suck so bad in America.
2. It is interesting that you imply that humor has a liberal bias. Are you saying that conservatives have no sense of humor? Can't say I disagree.
3. PBS receives some of its funding from government, and unlike FOX News, is actually the gold standard in fair and balanced reporting. This proves that public funds do not necessitate bias.
4. I have found that NPR east coast is quite objective and rational.
5. Fair and balanced does not mean giving equal creditability to two sides of an argument when one side is complete and utter bullshit. For example, astronomy vs astrology, evolution vs creationism / intelligent design, climate change science vs climate change deniers, holocaust historians vs holocaust deniers. Sometimes, one side is just a pack of lies, and it's not fair and balance to take a mountain of evidence from multiple sources and some crackpot, easily disproved lies and call it a wash.

Dan8267 says

CaptainShuddup says

But people say they are comedians, when you call them out on their failings as honest journalists.

Feel free to provide specific examples of when either show stated something false or deliberately misled the public. We live in the information age, this should be trivially easy to do if you are correct. Case in point, people show exactly these kinds of examples regarding Fox News.

How about these:

- CBS using forged memos to try and throw the 2004 presidential election?
- MSNBC doctoring 9/11 tapes of Zimmerman/Martin shooting to enflame racial tensions?
- MSNBC doctoring video of a grieving father from Sandyhook to make gun rights owners look bad?

Has Fox done anything as egregious as the forged memos or trying to incite race riots like the examples above?

Pew says MSNBC far more biased than Fox in past election.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-had-more-negative-coverage-of-romney-than-fox-news-did-of-obama-says-pew/

Finally, do you all realize that only a tiny fraction of the population watches Fox News each day? Nearly 10X more people watch NBC Nightly News alone than total Fox viewers all day. Throw on CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Major Newspapers, Comedy Central, Hollywood, Academia......and Liberals have a total lock on our information.

So I have to scratch my head when I see so many good meaning liberals freak-out over Fox when they already have total domination of our media gate-keepers let alone our culture.

socal2 says

So I have to scratch my head when I see so many good meaning liberals freak-out over Fox when they already have total domination of our media gate-keepers let alone our culture.

We just cut off Cable, and my Google TV is cut off from the networks,(Thanks Obama) so I can't watch any News networks.

I'm riding a 100% bareback from now on, I always have. But that never stopped anyone from accusing me of watching too much FOX before.

CaptainShuddup says

I'm riding a 100% bareback from now on, I always have. But that never stopped
anyone from accusing me of watching too much FOX before.

I have found with many people that conservative points of view are so alien to them because they never hear about it in school or the mainstream media. So most (not all) people put up a wall and simply think we are spouting "Fox News Lies" when presented with an alternative ideology.

I think it really shows the insecurity of some liberals who can't stand to even entertain an alternative POV. It is not enough to say a person disagrees with the logic or feasability of a certain Conservative policy. They have to impugn the motives, morality and source of the alternative point of view. Essentially, many of them think Conservatives can only be conservative if they are evil or being duped by Fox News.

pi*(O'reilly¼-O'Donnellƒ)*(√Maddow¥ ÷ Hannity2¢)= the Truth.

CaptainShuddup says

socal2 says

So I have to scratch my head when I see so many good meaning liberals freak-out over Fox when they already have total domination of our media gate-keepers let alone our culture.

We just cut off Cable, and my Google TV is cut off from the networks,(Thanks Obama) so I can't watch any News networks.

I'm riding a 100% bareback from now on, I always have. But that never stopped anyone from accusing me of watching too much FOX before.

socal2 says

How about these:

- CBS using forged memos to try and throw the 2004 presidential election?

- MSNBC doctoring 9/11 tapes of Zimmerman/Martin shooting to enflame racial tensions?

- MSNBC doctoring video of a grieving father from Sandyhook to make gun rights owners look bad?

Has Fox done anything as egregious as the forged memos or trying to incite race riots like the examples above?

First off, none of these things have anything to do with RT News. But let's address them and compare them to Fox.

CBS using forged memos to try and throw the 2004 presidential election?

Your statement is a lie. CBS news and Dan Rather believed that the documents were legitimate. Yes, they failed to do due diligence, but that is a far cry from trying to throw the 2004 election.

MSNBC doctoring 9/11 tapes of Zimmerman/Martin shooting to enflame racial tensions?

Your statement is a lie. Yes, MSNBC altered the audio of the 9/11 tapes. Yes, this was wrong. Yes, this makes the altered version completely untrustworthy. No, this alternation was not deliberately done to inflame racial tensions. The intent of the alterations was to clarify the audio and determine exactly was being said. The flaw in the technique is that any attempt to go from inaudible sounds to coherent words requires assumptions and prejudices in the adjustment of the audio. In this case, the listener suspects that Zimmerman said "nigger" and tries to adjust the audio to clarify this word, but what he's really doing is distorting the audio so that it does sound like the word he's already thinks it is.

Nevertheless, you are incorrect in your assertion that this was intentional deception.

MSNBC doctoring video of a grieving father from Sandyhook to make gun rights owners look bad?

Confirmed. MSNBC did this and it was clearly wrong. Bad MSNBC.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/piH3293-ShM

The difference between MSNBC and Fox? MSNBC does this once in a blue moon, Fox does it every single day. It is standard procedure at Fox, and Fox examples are far more outrageous. Fox frequently edits video to make it sound like people are saying the exact opposite of what they actually are. Fox example, Fox edits a video to make it sound like Hilary Clinton says the embassy bombing should not be investigated and the guilty not pursued when what she actually said was that politicking must be put aside so that the incident could be investigated and the guilty brought to justice.

Has Fox done anything as egregious as the forged memos or trying to incite race riots like the examples above?

Absolutely. http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-10-most-outrageous-completely-made-up-obama-scandals/

And that's just to name a few.

Just looking at politifact.com's pendant page and there is a clear distinction between the "liberal" pundits including MSNBC and conservative pundits including Fox News. The conservatives lie far more frequently and more outrageously. Of course, since the evidence on politifact.com shows that conservatives are bad, that by definition means politifact.com must be a liberal shill. After all, all fair and balance sources, by definition, must conclude that the GOP and their media whores do no wrong.

socal2 says

I have found with many people that conservative points of view are so alien to them because they never hear about it in school or the mainstream media

I believe in small government, rugged individualism, balanced budgets, and zero debt. That used to make me a textbook conservative. However, today conservative has become code for wanting big government that controls the lives of individuals and spends enormous money, but only on defense not social safety nets, and helps big corporations ensure that no startups can compete with them in establish markets.

Conservatism today is the exact oppose of what it was in the 1950s. Conservatives hate limited government, economic competition between companies, low government spending, individual self-determination, an educated population, and transparency and accountability in government.

Back when conservatives were respectable, you could not be a conservative without being a liberal because conservatives first and foremost believed in the liberty of the individual as opposed to the leftist philosophy of the authority and interests of the collective taking precedent. However, today social conservatism is just code for bigotry and xenophobia and financial conservatism is just code for ransacking the economy to steal as much wealth from the middle class as possible before the whole system collapses. And that is why conservatives are no longer respectable.

Dan - your list of "10 most outrageous scandals" are allegations from kooks. It is is no way comparable to a major network like CBS using OBVIOUSLY bogus memos to try and throw a US Presidential election. Not even the same sport.

If Fox News or the Republicans have to own every fringe kook and birther, than the Media and Democrats need to own every OWS kook who got arrested for terrorism charges (trying to blow up Ohio bridges) or raping girls in the camps.

Nor do I buy that MSNBC is blameless for all of the racial hatred they fomented with their doctored 9/11 videos in Florida. FFS - Al Sharpton works for MSNBC and was down their leading marches.

Dan8267 says

I believe in small government, rugged individualism, balanced budgets, and zero
debt. That used to make me a textbook conservative.

You can argue that Conservatives strayed from their roots during the Bush years of "Compassionate Conservatism" which was nothing more than big spending Liberalism and tax cuts.

But you can't say what you said above with a straight face and think the current crop of Democrats running the show believe in ANY of the things you list above.

Nancy Pelosi was going around last week saying we don't even have a spending problem.

socal2 says

OWS kook who got arrested for terrorism charges (trying to blow up Ohio bridges) or raping girls in the camps.

Is that part of the liberal platform, plank, or constituency?

Racists (fringe and birther baggers) are a part of the rights' historical legacy. We're not making Republicanism or Fox responsible for all the criminals on the right. That's a false comparison.

Dan8267 says

However, today social conservatism is just code for bigotry and xenophobia and
financial conservatism is just code for ransacking the economy to steal as much
wealth from the middle class as possible before the whole system collapses. And
that is why conservatives are no longer respectable.

Missed this bit of nonsense.

You really BELIEVE this garbage Dan? Really?

See - just like I said earlier. It is not enough for Libs to disagree with Conservative political philosophy. They have to attach all sorts of evil motives like racism and bigotry. I don't think Liberals are evil or lazy, I just think they are wrong on many issues.

Anyway, if Liberalism is such a great governing system. Why is California the biggest basket case economy of all the states? We have so many more advantages in our state than other states in terms of natural resources, coastal tourism and agriculture. But leave it to Democrats and their union slave masters to ruin this great state in 3 short decades.

CL says

socal2 says

OWS kook who got arrested for terrorism charges (trying to blow up Ohio bridges) or raping girls in the camps.

Is that part of the liberal platform, plank, or constituency?

Elizabeth Warren (along with many national Democrats) were pretty proud of the movement until they started to get too smelly and violent.

Warren even claimed she created the "intellectual foundation" for what they do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/elizabeth-warren-occupy-wall-street_n_1030974.html

socal2 says

Elizabeth Warren (along with many national Democrats) were pretty proud of the movement until they started to get too smelly and violent.

Right. But rape is not even in OWS's purview. They didn't advocate rape, or cater to rapists to garner support from the rape community.

The rightwing does cater to racists. Even Murdoch denounced Nativists in the GOP. The kooks, in other words, are constituents. There is nothing intrinsic to rape and liberalism.

OWS was Ruby Ridge the board game...

socal2 says

Dan - your list of "10 most outrageous scandals" are allegations from kooks. It is is no way comparable to a major network like CBS using OBVIOUSLY bogus memos to try and throw a US Presidential election. Not even the same sport.

It is your assertion that CBS forged memos to throw an election. There is no evidence to support your assertion.

And not even the same sport? Trying to get the president impeached on the premise that he illegally ran for president as a foreign born person? That's the fucking superbowl of lies.

Dan8267 says

It is your assertion that CBS forged memos to throw an election. There is no evidence to support your assertion.

But there is ample, undisputed proof, that Bush was able to avoid military service to work on a Senate campaign.

A regular scion I'd like to have a beer with.

socal2 says

You can argue that Conservatives strayed from their roots during the Bush years of "Compassionate Conservatism" which was nothing more than big spending Liberalism and tax cuts.

I'll argue that the so-called GOP became it's polar opposite in the 1960s with Barry Goldwater, Dixicrats, and religious nutjobs taking over the party.

Eisenhower was the last "republican" president that wasn't a crook.

socal2 says

If Fox News or the Republicans have to own every fringe kook and birther, than the Media and Democrats need to own every OWS kook who got arrested for terrorism charges (trying to blow up Ohio bridges) or raping girls in the camps.

Another red herring. OWS has nothing to do with liberalism or RT News, the two things I've been defending. I'm not a democrat; I just think they are by far the lesser of the two evils, but they are still an evil. Nor have I've been advocating MSNBC or CNN as excellent news sources. Read my original post.

Dan8267 says

The only real news outlets are:
Daily Show
Colbert Report
NPR
RT News
and The Newsroom (US)

and three of them don't even call themselves real news.

You still haven't refuted that. So stop with the red herrings and strawmen. The best thing I've ever said about CNN and MSNBC is that they are nowhere as bad and deceptive as Fox. And there's plenty of evidence to support that.

socal2 says

But you can't say what you said above with a straight face and think the current crop of Democrats running the show believe in ANY of the things you list above.

I don't vote for democrats because I think they will do good. I vote against republicans because I think they will do far more harm.

socal2 says

Nancy Pelosi was going around last week saying we don't even have a spending problem.

Then she sounds exactly like Dick Cheney, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.".

Oh, and I don't agree with Nancy Pelosi's economic or social policies.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

However, today social conservatism is just code for bigotry and xenophobia and

financial conservatism is just code for ransacking the economy to steal as much

wealth from the middle class as possible before the whole system collapses. And

that is why conservatives are no longer respectable.

Missed this bit of nonsense.

You really BELIEVE this garbage Dan? Really?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/xULsYYVcbr4

socal2 says

See - just like I said earlier. It is not enough for Libs to disagree with Conservative political philosophy. They have to attach all sorts of evil motives like racism and bigotry.

Notice that they are all the same damn map!

The American South and Midwest have been people, not entirely but overwhelmingly, with despicable, racist, and downright evil people since before the country was founded. They have established a culture of racism and bigotry and have been on the bigoted side of every civil rights issue in this nation's history. They are still fighting the Civil War which is why they love to wave, not the Confederate Flag, but the flag of the Confederate Navy which was made into a symbol by the KKK to show they were still fighting for slavery.

When these people stop acting like bigots, renounce their racist and backwards culture, and join the rest of us in the 21st century, I'll stop calling them bigots. Until then, they are bigots and none of us should let their opinions and horrible values determine the course of our nation.

Dan8267 says

The American South and Midwest have been people, not entirely but overwhelmingly, with despicable, racist, and downright evil people since before the country was founded. They have established a culture of racism and bigotry and have been on the bigoted side of every civil rights issue in this nation's history. They are still fighting the Civil War which is why they love to wave, not the Confederate Flag, but the flag of the Confederate Navy which was made into a symbol by the KKK to show they were still fighting for slavery.

When these people stop acting like bigots, renounce their racist and backwards culture, and join the rest of us in the 21st century, I'll stop calling them bigots. Until then, they are bigots and none of us should let their opinions and horrible values determine the course of our nation.

Do you even realize how crazy you sound? You are writing off half the freaking country like they are ALL bigots by calling the Midwest and South "overwhelmingly" evil.

Really a pretty dumb statement dude.

But I guess you got to do what you do to maintain your hyperbolic fear of Republicans or maintain a coherent political ideology. EEEEVVILLL people are coming for your girly parts Dan. Better watch out and keep voting straight Dem!

socal2 says

Do you even realize how crazy you sound? You are writing off half the freaking country like they are ALL bigots by calling the Midwest and South "overwhelmingly" evil.

Not as crazy as the right wing.

And I'm only writing off a third of the freaking country as bigots. Furthermore, 200 years of history backs me up. Notice how you haven't actually refuted any of the maps I've shown. A picture is worth a thousand words.

One more thing, your reading comprehension skills suck ass. I said

Dan8267 says

The American South and Midwest have been people, not entirely but overwhelmingly, with despicable, racist

Now, please continue down this thread of argument. I still have about six billion images from Google Image Search to post showing just how god-awfully evil the American South/Midwest has been throughout its 200-year history. Please make me post more pictures. Please do.

Dan8267 says

I still have about six billion images from Google Image Search to post showing just how god-awfully evil the American South/Midwest has been throughout its 200-year history. Please make me post more pictures. Please do.

Keep on hating man.

Do you suppose our media might have just a few people in editorial positions who share your same pathological hatred for flyover country and Republicans?

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
( see fox, highest rated cable news channel )

Unless you are not being fed.
( see msnbc, lowest rated cable news channel )

Case Closed.

CL says

SoftShell says

Precisely.

And O'reilly SLAMMED GE.

You lose.

Case Closed.

Re-read it, please. Fox has NEVER found fault with its parent company. That's because it is a horseshit organization. Unless you find Bill Ohreally criticizing Murdoch, the case is very much open.

socal2 says

Keep on hating man.

Hate is the appropriate emotional response to evil from Nazism to the KKK. I will keep hating evil. You can keep condoning it and whitewashing history.

I'm catching up on Real Time with Bill Maher and on the episode 2013-01-25 Howard Dean says the best line that sums up the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. Responding to a republican, Dean says,

You have 49% crackpots in your party, and we only have about 10!

referring to the 49% of republicans who still believe Obama was born in Kenya. And that really hits true. There are crazies in both parties, but the lunatics have taken over the Republican Party.

Howard Dean and the two republicans. Notice how both republicans can't help but smirk because they know it's true.

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

Keep on hating man.

Hate is the appropriate emotional response to evil from Nazism to the KKK. I will keep hating evil. You can keep condoning it and whitewashing history.

Hah! Now you are talking about Nazis!

Unhinged.

It's like talking to an Ibex.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/TugslL45aXk

Dan8267 says

I believe in small government, rugged individualism, balanced budgets, and zero debt. That used to make me a textbook conservative. However, today conservative has become code for wanting big government that controls the lives of individuals and spends enormous money, but only on defense not social safety nets, and helps big corporations ensure that no startups can compete with them in establish markets.

That's not conservatism, that's just our government today, bunch of big time spenders. Ron Paul is an old school conservative, and it's probably why he can't win in an entitled welfare driven society.

SoftShell says

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

( see fox, highest rated cable news channel )

Unless you are not being fed.

( see msnbc, lowest rated cable news channel )

Case Closed.

Journalism requires that you do. It would make sense that Fox watchers don't understand that.

Fox doesn't speak truth-to-power, because it is merely sycophantic drivel. Not as much conservative as it is a GOP outlet for talking points.

MSNBC does use talking points, but at least they're journalists. That's why they criticize their sugar daddies. Fox requires that their male newsreaders be dumb, and that their female newsreaders be blonde.

Just to clarify, when you speak of "fox" and "msnbc", are you speaking of their generic news show, or the "oreilly o'donnell maddow hannity MrEd" opinion shows?

CL says

SoftShell says

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

( see fox, highest rated cable news channel )

Unless you are not being fed.

( see msnbc, lowest rated cable news channel )

Case Closed.

Journalism requires that you do. It would make sense that Fox watchers don't understand that.

Fox doesn't speak truth-to-power, because it is merely sycophantic drivel. Not as much conservative as it is a GOP outlet for talking points.

MSNBC does use talking points, but at least they're journalists. That's why they criticize their sugar daddies. Fox requires that their male newsreaders be dumb, and that their female newsreaders be blonde.

FortWayne says

Ron Paul is an old school conservative, and it's probably why he can't win in an entitled welfare driven society.

Ron Paul does better with people who vote democrat or independent. He's very popular with liberals because of his good stand on human and civil rights. Even leftist who strongly disagree with his economics begrudging admit he's a good guy.

It's not welfare entitlement mentality that prevents Paul from being elected. Ron Paul will never be elected by the Republican base. Just look at the 2012 primary. The Republicans literally tried every single possible alternative to Mitt Romney, who they hated, including the black pizza guy, except Ron Paul. The only person they loathed more than Romney was Paul.

Despite that, Paul was pretty consistently in second place for the nomination due to the continual support across multiple states. Hell, I think Ron Paul had a better chance of defeating Obama than Romney did. He probably would not have won, but he likely would have come a lot closer especially in key swing states.

No, it's the republican base that prevents Ron Paul from being elected. Even if he were elected, they would assassinate him. They have already tossed out ballets for him and got caught doing so.

Dan8267 says

Ron Paul does better with people who vote democrat or independent. He's very popular with liberals because of his good stand on human and civil rights. Even leftist who strongly disagree with his economics begrudging admit he's a good guy.

This is why it was impossible for to have been nominated in the primaries in the election.

How can we start a "Abolish Closed Primaries" movement?

Dan8267 says

Even if he were elected

he wouldn't be able to govern. Obama can barely get his Republican Defense nominee through, even with support of Democrats in Congress.

Paul would have been an unmitigated disaster. No support from Dems or the GOP.

SoftShell says

Just to clarify, when you speak of "fox" and "msnbc", are you speaking of their generic news show, or the "oreilly o'donnell maddow hannity MrEd" opinion shows?

There are a few on Fox that I'd call journos. Wallace, sometimes Brett Baier, sometimes Shep.

But absolutely none of them have ever criticized Murdoch or Ailes, so they're still sycophants.

Murdoch has been pilloried for his crimes in Britain and Australia. And on MSNBC. Why does Fox avoid criticizing Murdoch?

MSNBC attacked Obama on drones, for example.

Who on Fox criticized Bush when he wasn't conservative enough?

How did Medicare Part D get treated on Fox? Was the Iraq war a conservative goal, or an issue that helped the Republican President?

Dan8267 says

Ron Paul does better with people who vote democrat or independent. He's very
popular with liberals because of his good stand on human and civil rights. Even
leftist who strongly disagree with his economics begrudging admit he's a good
guy.

The Left only liked Ron Paul because he was a borderline 9/11 Troofer and blamed most of the Muslim/Arab world's dysfunction on the US and Israel.

I got to believe that most liberals (including you) have no clue about Ron Paul because virtually all of his economic and social policies (including being staunchly pro-life) would send the girls in the Democrat party running for the hills. Ron Paul has a powerful story how he turned pro-life as an OBGYN doctor after witnessing a late term abortion where a living breathing baby was delivered and put into a bucket in the corner of the room to die.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/10/14/ron-paul-relives-witnessing-late-term-abortion-in-new-pro-life-ad/

Besides, doesn't the fact that the Republicans nominated a Northeastern squish like Romney who was pro-abortion until recently and soft on a number of economic issues and not Ron Paul contradict your earlier paranoia that Republicans were only after your ladyparts?

socal2 says

Ron Paul has a powerful story how he turned pro-life

Weird how his view of "liberty" doesn't extend to women choosing what's best for them.

socal2 says

Besides, doesn't the fact that the Republicans nominated a Northeastern squish like Romney who was pro-abortion until recently and soft on a number of economic issues and not Ron Paul contradict your earlier paranoia that Republicans were only after your ladyparts?

The GOP primary voter responded well to two things:

1) Negative attacks: The unruly mob wanted more and more negativity, more and more divisiveness. Romney dropped the bombs in spades.

2) Rhetoric/lies: Say anything, the more outrageous and unhinged the better.

Then they voted for the last guy left standing. Then they pretended they liked him and that the republic depended on him getting elected.

Alas, it's the voters on the right that the rest of the country are really scared of. The GOP leadership has proven that they are fickle and directionless. The angry mob of teabaggers are, as we speak, pushing personhood amendments, transvaginal ultrasounds, and more weird rape talk. It would be easy to accomplish any of these anti-woman measures with a weathervane like Romney.

CL says

socal2
says

Ron Paul has a powerful story how he turned pro-life

Weird how his view of "liberty" doesn't extend to women choosing what's best
for them.

Weird how your view of "liberty" apparently doesn't extend to a living breathing baby outside the womb that Ron Paul saw delivered and put into a bucket in the corner of the room to die.

I really think it is monstrous how some people can support late term abortions like as they hide behind euphamisms of "choice".

Why do some liberals and abortion supporters "hate science"?

As our society becomes more educated on the science and biology of procreation, I think future generations will look back at us as worse than slave-holders for the amount of unborn children we terminated. We are like freaking cave-men primitive.

BTW - Libs should be encouraging the US and Western Countries to have more babies if we want future tax payers to prop up our entitlement Ponzi schemes.

socal2 says

As our society becomes more educated on the science and biology of
procreation, I think future generations will look back at us as worse than
slave-holders for the amount of unborn children we terminated. We are like
freaking cave-men primitive.

Abortion is a very complex topic. I don't think anyone advocates someone being a serial abortionists. The key is to minimize chances where a woman will be in a positiion to make that choice. Reps need to do their part which will involve providing contraceptives even at high school level. But the fundamentalists won't go for it - they will claim that it will lead to societal decay because we will "encourage" people to have premarital sex aka "fornicators" lol

dublin hillz says

Abortion is a very complex topic. I don't think anyone advocates someone
being a serial abortionists. The key is to minimize chances where a woman will
be in a positiion to make that choice. Reps need to do their part which will
involve providing contraceptives even at high school level. But the
fundamentalists won't go for it - they will claim that it will lead to societal
decay because we will "encourage" people to have premarital sex aka
"fornicators" lol

I agree that abortion is a complex subject. But we are far more educated in 2013 than we were in 1973 when most people could hide behind the ignorance that a baby in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is a "clump of cells" or a "tumor". Same types of ignorance about genetics were used by slave holders and eugenics supporters to justify their evil practices.

Thanks to ultrasounds, we can no longer hide behind that ignorance.

I would like to think that even most abortion supporters understand that late term abortion is absolutely barbaric and rarely necessary to save the life of the mother. Particularly the case that Ron Paul saw where a baby was born alive and left in a bucket to die.

Yet here is Andrew Cuomo in New York trying to push a bill to reduce restrictions on late term abortion in New York.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/20/cuomos-logical-but-risky-late-term-abortion-push/

And what the heck are you talking about in terms of contraception availability? Do you think we live in the 1950's or something? It is as ubiquitous as the air we breath.

And we do have societal decay. A large percentage of the population has become so dumb that they don't realize that we need to have at least replacement level fertility rates to support the big massive government that 52% of the population thinks we deserve.

socal2 says

Weird how your view of "liberty" apparently doesn't extend to a living breathing baby outside the womb that Ron Paul saw delivered and put into a bucket in the corner of the room to die.

Does Paul support ending abortion? That is the elimination of choice, because in his view some "abuse it", right?

If a woman and her doctor agree to the procedure, to save the life of the mother, for example, then why would the non-authoritarian Paul become an authoritarian? Besides hypocrisy, I mean.

It gets down to, "If Paul does it, then it can't be authoritarian".

If Paul requests money for Galveston citizens deciding to live there, that's him just doing his constituents a solid, right?

But when it comes to Louisiana, it's their own damn fault?

And I like Paul, but to say he's a consistent motherfucker takes some real blinders.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/s66bTshO1jM

Earmarks for Dr. No? Shrimp fisheries? Pshaw.

CL says

Does Paul support ending abortion? That is the elimination of choice, because
in his view some "abuse it", right?

If a woman and her doctor agree to the procedure, to save the life of the
mother, for example, then why would the non-authoritarian Paul become an
authoritarian? Besides hypocrisy, I mean.

It gets down to, "If Paul does it, then it can't be authoritarian".

I don't get what you are trying to say.

I am not a Ron Paul fan. His principled (and medically informed) position against abortion is about the only position of his I support.

I am just puzzled how you could respond to the story about Ron Paul seeing a doctor put a healthy living baby in a bucket to die by decrying the lack of "liberty of the mother" to still choose to murder the baby that is no longer part of her body.

Seriously, raise your hand if you can support late term abortion unless the health of the mother or baby is severely at risk. And before someone chimes in claiming that late term abortions are rare, why on earth is Cuomo in New York trying to loosen the restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions?

I can almost excuse those who still try to pretend 8 week fetuses are just a "clump of cells". But if you are even minimally educated, you should know full well that babies in the 3rd trimester are very human and deserve the "liberty" of human rights and protection from destruction.