(no subject)

[geekchick]

Silliest thing I've read on the internets all day (although to be fair, I haven't perused stupid_free yet): "VOTE McCAIN by default for the sake of women's rights."

You mean the John McCain who promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will work to overturn Roe v. Wade (although he claimed to be opposed to overturning it before he was for it) and who has a whopping 0% rating from NARAL, opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, designed to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting how long workers can wait before suing for pay discrimination, because it would lead to more lawsuits, and "voted NO on legislation to extend the Title X federal family planning program, which provides low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control". Yeah, he's all about the women's rights.

The poster was making out to be a disgruntled Clinton supporter, but I think I'm going to go with "possibly Republican troll" instead since I've seen this exact same comment in a couple different places.

[Edit:] No, wait, I think we've got another contender!

Roe v. Wade is an amendment that once largely benefited young, middle, upper middle and upper class college women who found themselves pregnant. By middle age, "accidental" pregnancies are rare to unheard of and should they occur, they're usually welcome. By the time a woman reaches her 50s, Roe v. Wade has no personal relevance.
[...] Besides, there are too many legitimate physicians with access to the best of equipment who would probably offer the service at an exorbitant price should Roe bite the proverbial dust.

Comments

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

Only the portion of the world that is more impressed by words than actions. How's that Kool-aid taste?

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

No really you are losing the argument. The evidence does not back up your position and Dr Memory handed you your rhetorical ass.

The only point you've made that isn't disputed is that you are leery of supporting Obama. But given the flimsiness of the reasons you have given, Occam implies that your real reasons for opposing Obama are as yet unstated.

[tisiphone.livejournal.com]

You know, I've typed out and erased a dozen comments at this point, and none of them are quite able to reflect the fact that this is someone else's journal and the manners that requires. I didn't argue my point particularly hard because I respect geekchick, whose journal this is, and dr_memory, whom I have found to be sensible and generally thoughtful even in cases where, as now, I do not share his opinion. Also, frankly, it was late and I tire of beating my head against a brick wall. Nathan believes that a run for president is an allowable reason for missing significant votes. I do not. We were both happy to leave it at that.

The person commenting above you is clearly a troll, but you presumptively are not. So perhaps you should reflect on your motivation for making this comment, rather than my reasons for not supporting Obama.

(frozen)

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

Either you are being dishonest or you are naively stupid. Your expression of concern for my motivations for shooting fish in a barrel gives more weight to the former.

(frozen)

[geekchick]

Okay, enough please.