GOP DebateFollow

Standard 9mm ammo is a little less than 16¢. 7.62x51mm is about 22¢ each.

Well, the sodium thiopental costs about $350. Maybe we should be looking at the 7.62.

How's that? Yeah, yeah, I know I haven't kept up on this thread.

why would it have to be consistent? they aren't the same thing. 1 is a living person, the other is an unborn fetus (or a glob of cells if its early stage). The two aren't even remotely similar. Drawing comparisons between them is a pretty slippery slope.

Edited, Sep 13th 2011 6:02am by rdmcandie



Good to know that even in Canada our ammunition costs more, even though our dollar is the same (or better).

Edited, Sep 13th 2011 6:04am by rdmcandie

Didn't watch the debate; catching up on coverage now. One interesting part was when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul a hypothetical question about a man without insurance, saying "What should we do? Should we let him die?" some members of the audience cheered.. As Varus would say, "Classy."

Reading the CNN "analysis" was also interesting. Out of all the people in their article, not one mentioned Ron Paul (either yea or nay). The one mention of Ron Paul in the FOX News article just said that he attacked Perry on raising taxes.

Last thought on the major points people are in a tizzy about, is Bachmann harping on Perry for supporting the mandate of HPV vaccines. I think Perry handled it well, saying if he could do it again he'd still support the measure, but not via executive order. Oh, and lulz on Bachmann calling Plan B an abortion pill.

You just illustrated my point btw.

You're getting too caught up on specifics. Step back from the issue and look at it more broadly. Ignore *why* someone thinks one thing might be murder or not. Look instead at the fact that you have two different actions called A and B. We have four groups:

Group 1 considers A to be murder, but not B.
Group 2 considers B to be murder, but not A.
Group 3 considers both A and B to be murder.
Group 4 considers neither A nor B to be murder.


You are trying to argue about which group is right, but that's not the question at hand. The issue is whether it's valid for a member of any of those groups to call a member of another group's position "inconsistent" or "hypocritical". IMO, it is not valid to make that claim since the claim itself rests on how one views actions A and B, and the groups themselves are aligned based on differences in that very view.


To make such a claim requires that you assume that a member of a different group actually considers things the way a member of your own group does. Which can't be true. If they did, they wouldn't be a member of that other group. To make a valid claim of hypocrisy or inconsistency, you have to show that they are violating their own positions, not yours. The second your claim rests on assumptions which you believe but the other group does not, your claim is invalidated.

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 3:15pm by gbaji

/whoooosh!

It's not about which group you agree with. Boy did you fail to comprehend.

So it's safe to assume you own neither a dictionary nor the capacity for reading comprehension?

She's immoral and untrustworthy? Sounds like pretty much every other politician.

Palin could have snorted coke out of Vanessa Williams' snatch in the 1980s for all I care. I'm more concerned (such as it is) with the dumbass shit she says & does now.

George Bush would never be caught wearing a yarmulke Jew Beanie.