yeah, you're right. There's no basis for that claim.

I bet you're really proud of that post, aren't you?

We'll talk about this in 6 months when Ron Paul drops out of the race.

and yeah... small minority...

I am the very model of a modern Major-General,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.
I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

*snip*

wow. compelling argument.

It is, isn't it?

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,
I know the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.
Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus's uniform:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

but not standards enough to keep from trashing a man's wife because he has different opinions than you and chooses to share them.

*snip*

You don't know what my opinions are, you ass hat. I, unlike you and half the other know-it-alls on the board can actually keep my big mouth shut instead of trying to ram opinions into every orifice presented to me. On that note, I'd hate to see you in communal showers.

Aren't you the one who was whining earlier about how you're allowed to express an opinion?

A debate implies I'm trying to change your mind. I'm just posting obvious flaws and letting you look crazy.


I already said what the common sense was before you even posted. You didn't read/acknowledge it. I even specifically referred you back to it.

Besides, the fact that you even admit your argument is weak is plenty enough for me. My solid defense stands. Motion to dismiss.

I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say what everyone is obviously thinking...

ALAN / ANTONY '12 [/B][/SIZE]

(His signature is the tagline)

Hey it's obvious to me that everyone else is praying for it. We're on a mission from God. God told me that I should become president and encourage abortions and gay marriage. He told me that the earthquake and hurricane were a message to people who are against abortion. It's what I have to do. I'll be counting on your vote next fall! I'm running as a who-gives-a-****-berterian!

ALAN [/COLOR] / ANTONY [/COLOR] '12 [/B][/SIZE]
FOR GAY ABORTIONS, VOTE EARLY AND OFTEN

My fellow Americans, I would like to announce that Alan is and will always be my *****. He is my second. My vice president. My wanna be. He is the Biden to my Obama. The Cheney to my Bush. The Sambora to my Bon Jovi.

The Ringo to your rest of the Beatles?

<_<

Martyn gets the idea.

ANTONY / ALAN '12 [/SIZE]

Revised so that the ***** gets put in the *****e's place.

SORRY SIR BUT I CAN'T HELP BUT SEE THIS ALL OVER

This was a pretty decent thread until the start of page 3.

Cool Matty, what I'm saying is, whatever you think was 'common sense', I don't recognize it as such. So when I look at your posts, I'm not seeing what you think is so obvious. You have two choices right now. You can call me stupid, or, you can be more specific.

That sort of behavior doesn't help you, you realize.

whaaaaa, people are talking about something I don't want to talk about!

Considering, according to you, you came up with the exact same deduction, and I really CAN'T be more specific than stating rape + no insurance for convenience + the other metaphor of a psycho husband, I don't have anything else to say, buddy. There's literally no way I could be more blunt and obvious than that.

I think it's a mistake to think that Ron Paul is having any significant effect on this primary race. For all the talk about him being the "original Tea Partier," his view of small government was never going to become mainstream in the Republican Party because it's anti-war, pro-drug legalization, and frankly not anti-gay enough. No one in the Republican field has moved toward these positions as a result of Paul's influence, and no candidate has even tried to position himself or herself to Paul's right on taxes, spending, or the elimination of federal agencies.

We're not actually trying to accomplish anything, though...

I heard that in some places you can be charged with a misdemeanor for 'committing acts which serve no purpose'

Edit: OH NO IT'S AN INTERNET CRIME http://www.safeschools.info/internet-safety-faq

Oh noes! The internet police will surely be at my door in moments for posting crap in a crappy thread!

It's ironic that you think this, considering the manner in which you subsequently chose to post.

Alan and Antony should consider themselves to be on thin ice. If they aren't smart enough to figure out why and choose to keep acting as they have, then they deserve to be banned.

Well that's not fair. Sarn is allowed to post retarded religious/political bull**** and Alan and I aren't allowed to post regular retarded bull****? I feel as though I'm being discriminated against.

I think you're absolutely correct for about half of that. Those aren't all reasons why he's not having an affect on the primary; they are all reasons why he is. Ron Paul is preaching a message of peace and liberty that the republican party hates, and the very fact that they hate it is what's driving voters to Ron Paul. I think that the reason Ron Paul polls so well with independents is because his message is so different from the republicans and the democrats.

effect

I find that "common sense" relies HEAVILY on a person's preconceptions. So if you're not getting the argument he's trying to make, he's probably not gonna be able to explain it in any way that makes more sense to you. I get what he's saying, but I still think it's a pretty ridiculous argument for 2 reasons. 1) A thief puts you in danger by choice. He travels to the place where he is going to thieve, and CHOOSES to enter. He further chooses to attack or run if discovered. An unborn baby has NO choice. He/she was placed into the womb (whether consensually by both parties or not) and has no oppurtunity to choose to be there, or to "attack" or "run" when discovered. The thief argument breaks down pretty quickly for this 1st reason, but I'll provide the 2nd anyway. 2) A thief INTENTIONALLY puts you in danger. A baby does not. If a thief comes into your house and attacks you, you have a right to defend yourself in a deadly fashion if necessary (but believe me you WILL have to prove to the police that your actions were justified). On the other hand, imagine if you're driving down the freeway and another driver doesn't see you and cuts into your lane and almost hits you. That driver has unintentionally put your life in danger, but that gives you NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to "defend yourself" by killing him. Hell even if the other driver's intentionally being a dick and weaving in and out of traffic and cutting you and other drivers off, you STILL have no right to kill him, even though he's continuing to put your life in danger. Why should you have a right to kill an unborn child because there's a (with modern technology, incredibly small) risk that the pregnancy could kill you?

Dsettahr, I'm actually surprised you haven't chosen to already ban them. I have been very careful to present my opinions WITHOUT making any kind of personal attacks on anyone, and as far as I know everyone else in this thread has done the same (with the minor exception of Jon`C's high-brow attempts to belittle, but I'm used to that and can ignore them, and they're hardly over the line). Then these two come in out of nowhere and are basically trolling and derailing the thread in a highly offensive manner. They've clearly already broken the rules.

But whatever. I'm putting them on ignore at this point. If you don't think they've done enough to warrant a ban I won't complain further. I just didn't expect you (or other moderators) to be so lenient, when it's so obvious neither I or anyone else in this thread did anything to warrant that behavior.

sarn I have put you on a permanent ignore, public and private. I have found you disturbing, rude and generally not worth talking to. According to the forums you hang on, it strengthens the effect of wanting to put you on ignore because of my lack of interest in you as a person. This message is not meant to be rude to you, just to inform you that I won't see anything of what you say from now on.

For the same reason the mother has a choice at any critical moment during a pregnancy gone awry. Just because it's less likely doesn't mean crap. You're just setting arbitrary lines up at that point.

See how simple this is when you cut out all the BS?

No I don't, primarily because you ignored 95% of my post, including the #1 reason I pointed out. *shrug*

And yes, the likelihood of danger IS a significant factor. If someone pulls a gun on you, there's a pretty likely chance you're in danger. If they pull a banana, you're gonna have a hard time convincing ANYONE you were acting in self defense when you kill them. It's probably possible to kill someone with a banana... but it's pretty damn unlikely and you're sure as hell not gonna get the police to believe that you legitimately felt threatened.