"Cursing is the refuge of the incompetent," my grandfather used to tell me. Basically, if you can't think of anything more compelling or salient to express yourself with than an expletive, you look ignorant. At least, in my eyes.

PS - I just joined this board, and seeing people answer debate questions with personal attacks and board in-jokes/rants cheapens the intellectual appeal of the site by quite a good bit. I think it would be wonderful if people just answered the question asked.

PPS - please do not respond to my PS directly. It will both be ironic and contradictory to my point. Feel free to talk about whether or not cursing makes you look ignorant, though.

This is a tricky little question. The answer, I feel, is sort of "yes" and "no," but this is set up as a straw-man argument, which I don't care for.

Aborting an innocent fetus that's just sitting there, doing his/her thing, is ending a life; murdering an innocent passerby that's just sitting there, doing his/her thing is ending a life. So they are the same.

The motivations, presumably, are quite different. The circumstances are quite different. So it's different.

Here's a really interesting "what if:" what if there was a mass murderer who's MO was to shoot a tiny needle through the belly of random pregnant women? In this magical world, this needle instantly murders the unborn child, but will not do lasting harm to the woman. This takes away the religious aspect of whether or not abortion is good/bad/wrong/right/necessary/etc... how would you feel if you read in the news that someone was randomly slaying people's unborn children? Outraged, right? How horrible! See, murdering a fetus is in some ways the same as murdering anyone else... people just don't want to see it that way because it's become a religious and political debate.

But in the end, I'll stick with "no," because I had to create an alternate reality to make my point and this question is biasedly-worded anyway. There are too many differences in circumstance, methodology, and motivation to say that these are the "same" (a tricky term, in any case).

I don't know why I answered this one.

That's not what begging the question means. For the record, it refers to an argument that uses itself as evidence for itself (i.e., it's circular). I know this seems like a snarky thing to comment on, but I don't mean it to - I just like accuracy, and you seem to like using the phrase.

Very simply, the democrats' worry is much more likely to come to pass. As a matter of fact, it already has: the economic crash was caused by allowing freedom to the rich to "create jobs," and all they did was grow corrupt and steal money. Then we bailed them out (who bails out the poor folk when THEY need money?) and they proceeded to spend it on more extravegances. The rich only care about getting richer, at whatever cost.

This is also evident in the oil industry: for years, the oil companies supressed or bought out companies pursuing fuel alternatives so they could continue making profits. Forget whether or not dependence on fossil fuels is, ultimately, good or bad - as long as a profit can be made NOW. Let the planet suffer, let my grandchildren suffer - as long as we have money NOW. The Democrats, for all their faults, are able to think about future repercussions; the Republicans only want to see immediate results. This is also the problem with people who complain that Obama hasn't done enough for the economy.

In summary, the worries of the Democrats - corrupt, rich companies; reducing education until the US is no longer a leader in education; the degredation of our planet - are current issues that have already come to pass, in part.

The worries of the Republicans are outlandish by comparison. Our government has never grown so large that it tells us what to do in our own households. Well, it DOES tell us what we can't do in our bedrooms - which is pretty much none of its business - but the Republicans are okay with that as long as it stops gays from getting married. Actually, the administration that came closest to Big Government overstepping its boundaries was the Republican Bush, Jr. administration: his abuse of rules to keep himself in power and get what he wanted - including wiretapping - was the closest to the Republicans' worry. And we responded very negatively to it - so negatively, that I doubt any Democratic-run government could do what the Republicans claim they're worried about. The People would never let us go back to a monarchy.

The economy? We've done it the Republican way, and all that happens is corruption. Look at any of the data, and you'll see that the debt was increased more by Republican presidencies than Democratic ones in the past few decades. Clinton and Obama have reduced the deficit in comparison to Reagan, Bush, and Bush. Trickle-Down Economics doesn't work - ask any economist. Try giving money to the poor - there are more of them, anyway - instead of to the rich and see what happens.

In summary, Republican concerns about the moral degredation of society and the intrusion of Big Brother are scare tactics, not realities. Republicans are by nature either wealthy or religious - I dare you to find a poor, athiest Republican. The wealthy ones will do anything to hold on to their precious cash, and the religious ones will attempt to scare people into following their rigid dogma. The Democrats should be listened to.

a) there are no minarchist countries today. There's probably a reason for that.

b) I would love to hear your thoughts on the actual details of the question above.

The state vs. me, huh? So, you argue for individual rule? Anarchy? Please describe your ideal system to "preserve liberty."

What "lies" and "deceptions" are you referring to, specifically? He's more honest and his presidency has been markedly more transparent (it's one of his hallmarks; see: the White House webpage, e.g.) than his predecessors. Please describe what you are "fed up" with, and whether it's really enough to deserve his not being re-elected.

Please specify what his "lies" and "BS" are. Are they really greater than/worse than those of our previous president? I would argue that he has mostly done what he said he would. Please refute.

What exactly couldn't the country withstand? Haven't jobs and the economy only improved since his election? In case you're not sure, they answer is: yes. So what couldn't we withstand, specifically?

Based upon what? In what way are we currently screwed by Obama, and how will further screwage occur?