Anonymous is an interesting phenomenon...it is undoubtedly a whole lot of strange, backwards, eccentric compute nerds who one typically thinks about hatching petty little plots to get back at the world than abandoning them...then again some of them at least are actually committed to what they are doing.

Such a strange world we live in that the GOP of 2008 was such that Romney was the more Right wing alternative to McCain.

Santorum has always been more aggressive. He needs to learn from Gingrich's mistakes...dont alternate between unsubstantive petty attacks and ridiculous attempts to seem all nice and high minded right when you actually start to gain traction. Go straight for Romney where he is most vulnerable, his out and out LIBERALISM, and keep your fangs on him until his campaign goes down in flames. Fortunately, Santorum has done that very well so far. I hope he keeps it up. Santorum can clinch this if he knocks the upcoming Arizona debates out of the parks mainly by punching Romney repeatedly the way Romney knocked out Gingrich in Florida.

I would say being pro-life/pro-choice has allot to do with Libertarianism. I can make a libertarian argument for both pro-choice or pro-life. Of course, as you said, this all hinges on what the humanity is of the fetus...is it human or not?

I think the fetus is a Human being, worthy of our rights as much as any other, so I make the Freedom, right based argument, against abortion.

"I am quite libertarian in nature. I will argue against abortion all day long but I will not for one second contemplate forcing another to bow to my will in such a decision."

What exactly is it that you object to about Abortion? If you think its bad because the fetus/embryo is a person, then why the h*ll are you saying your not going to force another to "bow" to your decision? It is very much your business to step in and stop people from killing each other, that's why we have a government.

If you don't think the fetus or the embryo is a person, what do you find objectionable about it?

Of course, we can have a debate about the intrinsic worth of a fetus vs. a baby. vs. an adult, but if we are going to say a fetus is a human but somehow worth less (and thus a fairer target for deliberate termination) than we must say that a baby is worth less than an adult, and that a senior is worth less than an adult. We'll end up buying into a ridiculous utilitarian scale of who's worth what and that will surely lead us to a dark place...

Not that I'm saying you think these things. I suspect you just haven't thought it through ;) (no offense meant just looking to change minds and maybe get an honest debate)

Well said Palidin...I am no fan of much of the Liberals social agenda, but if they want to pursue all these things on a state by state basis, sure. I would be just fine returning abortion to the states, seeing as how a constitutional ban on the practice does not seem politically feasible. It should be the same approach that Lincoln took to slavery; containment when complete extinction is not possible.

Its funny how I find myself returning to the Bigs and Drudge and Real Clear politics whenever Romney loses...otherwise, I'm too depressed by his "inevitability" to even care, but then hope gets kindled again.

I'll always be inclined to think Gingrich would have been a better President, but he failed to go for Romney's jugular in Florida by going on the offensive on the substantive things (as opposed to getting bogged down in petty issues which reasonable voters don't give a d@mn about). Santorum did, and Santorum is the last conservative standing. I'm sure he's made some bum votes and said stupid things, but he has shown himself to be excellent on the attack in these debates. If he keeps that up and really goes for Romney, he can clinch this thing. Gingrich should drop out and endorse Santorum, and the Conservatives should unite around him. Take this Opportunistic Liberal-turned-conservative $h!thead down, Rick!

That guy wakes up every day, looks outside and goes "Dah f 'ck is this?"

To answer the last part first, I think if the Liberals accused me of being "anti-democratic" they'd be right. I think its overrated. Valuable yes...but only as part of a hierarchical republican government. I'd repeal the 17th Amendment if I had the power to do so. So I ain't a shill for Democracy.

"I encourage them to vote FOR something - as opposed to against something. BIG difference."

Pfft, that's a meaningless statement. You vote for something, your voting against something else. You vote against something, your voting for something else. I don't think a cliche like that constitutes much of an argument.

The point is, we don't make progress for voting for obscure 3rd party candidates who probably have equal or worse liabilities as the main contenders, and that is where your logic leads. You want to say "lets stop voting for people who don't meet our lofty standards!" Okay...and vote for what? In case you haven't noticed, we are already pushing for triple A candidates. The newer generations of Republican leaders, the Tea Party wave, show allot of promise. I don't take issue with you saying these people suck, or that we should push to make our candidates better. I take issue with you suggesting that the voters are somehow unreasonable for voting for these guys at all. You wanna vote for another uninformed, non-ideological "populist" idiot, like Donald Trump or Ross Perot? Be my guest.

Anti-democratic b@stard that I am, I think the voters are guilty of idiocy, and evil, and hypocrisy, but not beacuse they vote for mainstream candidates.

I didn't mention him because I would never vote for him not because I "forgot him".