Thank you Barbarian for breaking the argument up.

My suggestion for changing the GOP:
I think perhaps if we write letters to GOP offices in our communities telling them that we want conservatism, not liberal light. Maybe even stop by their offices if they are close enough and have a respectful conversation with them. Point out to them that Specter knew he wasn't going to win as a Repub, and so switched to Dem, and he's still not going to win according to polls. That should make the situation clear.

Perhaps if enough of us did this in all of our states, the GOP will understand. We can also respectfully tell them that this is not their movement, it is ours, but they are welcome to agree with us.

Course, if they don't get it. We can vote independent.

I think I was wrong weezo, your head is not buried in the sand, it is buried in the magma.

You are correct in arguing that the only sure way to be sure of how many procedures he did would be to look at his clinic's records. I do not live anywhere near Kentucky, and although it is very possible that we could find an authoritative source on the internet if we actually put effort into it, I am unwilling to waste my time for you. Lets be fair, lets say he only killed oh... 1000 babies in his (completely and absolutely established 35+ yrs of his clinic being open). This is a ridiculously low estimate, and yet it still says that 1000 human beings were killed by this man, and at least some of them for no good reason. I still find the number to be very sad. Lets say that he only performed 1 partial-birth abortion, and lets say he did it by talking the baby to death, perhaps by using some of your logic and resourcefulness, That is still too many, unless of course the mother's health was ACTUALLY in danger.

This shouldn't need to be spelled out, but clearly it must be. In the case of consensual sex, I suggested that the time for the "Pro-Choice" argument "should involve girls AND BOYS considering the consequences before they engage in the act." In the case of non-consensual sex, I allowed for abortion on the condition of rape. That covers everything, as a women (or man for that matter) saying no means no, and if it goes beyond that then it is rape, and the guilty should be prosecuted, and the mother has the opportunity to take advantage of my rape allowance. If it seems that I am "putting all the blame for an unwanted pregnancy on the woman" then people are misunderstanding what I wrote.

As for your pigheadedness about O'Reilly, what do you really think we can accomplish between the aisles if we foolishly declare that any argument made on either side is simply paid advertisements by the side we don't like. You have a tendency to ask for proof, and when proof is given you have a remarkable quiver of excuses for why it is not a valid argument. As I stated above, my post was not particularly intended to change your mind. As that is clearly a ridiculous expectation. However, I invite you to have the courage to look up the information on non-pro-life sites, and discover for yourself the truth. I know the sites are out there, and I know that they contain very similar information, in fact the only real difference is that the language is much more clinical so as to make the material more easily digested.

Incidentally, you state "the "thorough research" was performed by someone who was told to find the specific evidence that whoever made the site wanted to put on there". By that logic, any proof of anything on this forum would be inadmissible, at least to your court.

And no, you will not be getting an apology from me. Instead, I'd like to thank you for behaving in exactly the way I predicted. Anyone that reads this exchange has further proof of your intellectual dishonesty.

I will work on getting a companion site up and running immediately. I think this is one of the best ideas I have seen from this site. It will work to further our agenda on many levels. I will open the site up to all of you before taking it fully live and welcome any input. At the very least it will give the general public a chance to interface with the politicians at our convenience and on our terms.

British starting to react to Obama's policies:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/b...

of course, liberals will extol this story on the basis of cracking down on the rich. They probably will not consider the trouble this will cause and probable further damage to the British economy when American money is removed from their banks because of possible lawsuits.

Please remember, this will in actuality do no good. The people effected by this legislation will move their money to Switzerland. There is absolutely no chance that the Swiss will divulge details about anyone banking with them, they never have. If they did, it would destroy the basis of their entire economy.

This is nothing more than a pathetic PR stunt on the Obama administrations part. They have really done nothing other than add an extra hoop to the loopholes that can be used to hide income from the IRS. However, they will be lauded by the liberal media in this country for chasing down every cent of the evil rich. It is unfortunate that the British banking industry will suffer as a result of this chicanery.

Also interesting...

"So far Lloyds has started dropping its "mass affluent" clients who have investment portfolios of up to a few hundred thousand pounds but that its "high-net-worth individuals" are not yet effected." -from above cited article

Apparently this PR move is not necessarily something the extremely rich are that concerned about anyway.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-S...

Hmm... guess the conservative movement isn't as dead as our liberal friends would like us to believe.

We the People seem to be leaning away from the policies of the Obama-nation.

Barbarian-

You are a frickin genious! sorry for the implied language all.

I wonder if we can get the webmaster to give us a tab for specific discussions with politicians. If they won't, we could build that functionality into another related site. It would give us an opportunity to vett them ourselves instead of relying on the media to do it. If they want the votes of our members, they will come to our site.

Again, realizing that I will never change your mind, I am going to supply the following sources. I'm not doing it so much for you, but for the people that read what you write and mistakenly think that your uninformed position is accurate.

What I stated was that he terminated an "estimated 60,000". First of all, I did not qualify all of those 60,000 as all late term. That was something you assumed. Secondly, there is some valid debate regarding whether he performed the procedure "only to protect the life of the mother". I direct you to an interview for AG Phil Kline of Dr. Paul McHugh, a highly respected psychiatrist, that explicitly states that after reviewing Tiller's records, many of his patients were not in real danger at all, and in fact were not dealt with well before during or after the procedure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mviFMpy_sBU&fe... - Dr McHugh approx 7mins long.

As far as the actual 60,000 estimate:
"Back in 1991, The Star's Matt Schofield (then Wichita correspondent for the paper) reported that he performed "more than 2,000 abortions each year," meaning 60,000 is a plausible number if you extrapolate over the 35+ years he operated his clinic."

The fact that it can't be fully verified is why I say estimated.

If you consider some of the other resources I am humbly placing before you, you will get a much better grasp of the realities of abortion and late term abortion. One of the things that really annoys me about you liberals is that you rarely have any idea what you are talking about before you open your mouths. Then of course you assume that the conservatives are idiots, and dismiss what they say as propaganda. Again though, I am not really supplying all this to change your mind, cause you are too close minded and your head is stuck too far in the sand, I am providing this so that others do not get misled by your misstatements.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/ - a website that describes how abortions are performed
http://www.dr-tiller.com - a very strongly researched website that specifically deals with the system of extermination that eichmann...errr Tiller had designed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZTDxdYRsBk&mo... - an interview by O'Reilly of a former patient of Tillers (I know it's O'Reilly, so probably all lies from your perspective)

Just for the record, I have never, ever in my life done any research or had any political activism in my system regarding abortion. I found all of this information in less than an hour of searching online. I have stated before and will state again that in my opinion the pro-choice part of the argument should involve girls and boys considering the consequences before they engage in the act. There are lots of forms of contraception that don't directly involve killing a baby. Obviously, many of these forms kill eggs or sperm, I can live with that. I also concur with the vast majority of Americans in believing that in the case of rape, or ACTUAL threats to the mothers health that abortion should be an option, even possibly including late-term. However, the mother had her choice before she was irresponsible with her body and got herself pregnant.

If you have any integrity at all, I should see an apology from you in reply to this post regarding whether I am not a thinker, whether I am spewing propaganda, or that I have been illogical or irrational. I sincerely doubt I will see such an apology, as you will probably spin the argument off in some other way.

News- I'm sure you will read this. I want to thank you again for having some intellectual honesty on this subject. I understand you do not want to get into this argument, and I respect that. I also appreciate that you probably have at least some understanding of the topic before you start posting, could you please suggest in one of your commie meetings that Weezo does the same? 8^)

roger. Already registered independent. Sorry again bout the length of the post. Maybe we should break up the arguments into single servings so we can adequately discuss all sides. Again, I'm not against what you are suggesting, just wanna make sure we consider the repercussions as a group.

Barbarian and Sandy and everyone else for that matter-

I'm having a bout of insomnia, but am not fully awake, so I hope I don't confuse the issue with this Post. I've been thinking about how to phrase this for a couple of days, and decided to just write it.

I am a registered independent, and obviously lean towards conservative. I strongly agree with 99% of what both of you have written, I'm sure we'd get along great if we ever had a chance to meet. However, I do have a couple of thoughts that I think need to be considered by the members of this forum before we get going too far on which candidates we support. I have seen other posters touch on some of the issues I am worried about, and I grant all of them full credit, as they do deserve it.

I think first and foremost we should support any candidate from any party that supports the 9-12. If we find that they are breaking their commitments is when we should toss them out.

I do think that term limits are a good idea. I also think It would be good for us as a movement to weight candidates with real world experience in real world jobs as more acceptable.

I fully understand the tendency and urge to want to throw out all the bums, but there are probably a few in there that aren't really that bad. We should probably set up some system to look at their voting records and see if they are in keeping with our philosophy.

There are some very real dangers with pushing for the independent party over Republican idea. For one, I do think it is possible to elect a third party candidate, and I have read most of the arguments within this forum, and I have heard a lot of the arguments from conservative pundits both for and against. The fact of the matter is that no 3rd party candidate has ever won in the history of our country. The best example to site is Lincoln, who was the first Republican to win, but when the Republicans ran as a 3rd party they lost. It took two election cycles to move enough of the conservatives to vote republican. The second cycle, they weren't the 3rd party because they had defeated the 3rd party.

If you look at all democracies around the world, there are always two dominant parties. I think that's a natural extension of liberal vs conservative. I do think we could push the GOP into the history books and build a new party, but it will take time. Bear in mind we would need to get that candidate on a LOT of state ballots to have a chance, and it would cost a lot of money. The American people will slowly come around to a change, but it takes time. Think about it, it took the progressives almost 100 yrs to sway the public into their court enough to make the changes that are sickening all of us. Also, don't forget that if we do successfully push a 3rd party onto the ballot we will in essence remove the GOP which will leave us with... you guessed it... 2 parties. There might be a honeymoon period, but I bet within 2 or three cycles the new party would be heading down the same road as the Dems and GOP.

I really do hate writing all of this because I agree with many of the people on this forum that both parties have failed us. I just want to make sure that people consider all the possibilities before we expend the political capital we are accruing. Perhaps the idea of a Union or a PAC would be a better use of our resources.

It might be too late to get in on it, but supposedly the GOP is somewhat open to suggestions as to which direction they should go to try to win in 2010 and 2012. Maybe we could at the very least hedge our bets and try to drum it into their heads that we want them to hold to our philosophy and point out that we are watching closer than ever before.

Sorry bout the length of this. As I said, I'm tired.

Just a thought Weezy-

You are on a computer connected to the internet. Perhaps you should look up how late term abortions are performed, there has been plenty of time between all of your posts to do a simple search. There are actually a couple of accepted methods.

Even if the method was as "humanitarian" as say... lethal injection, which it isn't. The fact is that it is often times killing a baby that would otherwise likely survive if given a chance. According to multiple reports I have heard (mostly on Fox, so probably just conservative propaganda), many of Tiller's victims' moms were not in danger of adverse health conditions from giving birth to their babies. I know, you liberals don't like referring to "it" as a baby. I wonder how many of the estimated 60,000 that Tiller terminated already had names before he killed them and threw them in a dumpster as medical waste.

Hmmm, 60,000. Unless I'm mistaken, which I don't think I am, that's a lot more than have been killed in Iraq. It's certainly less than have been killed in Iraq by the American Military. That's actually an interesting thought. We could have saved a lot of money and trouble by sending Tiller over to Iraq. Of course, he wasn't nearly as discerning about whom he killed as the average US Marine is.

Before you get all blustery on me, I do NOT condone, nor applaud the murder of the man so lets not even go down that road.