Bush / Kerry / Nader

Children are often targeted by terrorists. It is absolutely moral to declare war on, defend our country from, and kill the terrorists who target children and innocent civilians.

 

I am not worried about ideologies now. I am rather more worried about my wallet. Both Kerry and Bush are murderers!! Will they go the Heaven if they drop dead today? I seriously doubt it. Note that this is not a judgment but an opinion. God's judgment is the one that matters

 

It's hard to disagree when you frame the argument in that way. However, there are many (millions) who disagree with your depiction.

First, wars are rarely moral. They are always regrettable, and they always kill people that are not directly involved in the fighting.

Second, many would disagree that the abortion of a 12-week old fetus is the same as murdering a two-year old. To frame abortion as the willful killing of children is deceptive. It is clearly not the same as killing children who are living and breathing and walking around in this world. Does that mean that it is not regrettable, and that abortion is not undertaken without great anguish and contemplation? No, of course not. And please don't cite the case of the welfare mom who has had 9 abortions and uses abortion as a form of birth control etc. It is always possible to find alarming exceptions, just as I can mention the nuts who bomb and kill doctors and nurses (and mothers) in abortion clinics. I hardly think those idiots are representative of the pro-life crowd.

The "strategy" of abortion is not murder. It is a grave decision that a mother makes when she feels she does not have the resources to care for her child.

Ironically, the people who are against abortion are OFTEN also against welfare, and additional resources to care for children who are born into families that do not have the resources to care for them properly. It's sad how the strident support for the "unborn" seems to vanish once they are born.

If you want to frame abortion as murder, then one might also argue that the dissipation of children born into poverty and other horrendous surroundings is a form of slow murder.

Finally, the "jurisdiction" of this issue is a woman's body. Until the baby is born, it is really her decision. So far, the Supreme Court seems to agree.

 

Moral issues aside (you cannot legislate morals or common sense) this election is going to be a tough one for this independent voter. I am truly sick of these two parties fighting one another like there is a big difference between them. All they have done is polarize this nation into two extreme camps when what we need is common ground to come together on. I do not like Bush as a leader, he has surrounded himself with a group of retreaded incompetents who have made this country the punching bag of the world. We have no credibility, virtually no close allies (most want something-$$$- in return for friendship), we have gone from one international crisis to the next, one scandal to the next and Kerry will do no better!!!
It always seems like I am voting against a candidate instead of for one. Democrats and Republicans are always looking for someone to blame when in reality they should only go as far as the nearest mirror and look closely at the reflection.

 

Interesting arguments and perspectives both ways. I have heard from several sources that Bush is a “nice guy” and that Kerry is somewhat pompous in his attitude. I have however found that second and third source information about politicians is usually skewed by political ideology. When I spent 3 months in MASS. A few years ago, I couldn’t find a soul that liked Kennedy, and yet he is still being elected term after term so I guess a majority of the voters still like him (or can’t find anyone better).

The race for the President is going to be interesting. We are dealing with an ideologue, and someone who doesn’t have a fixed ideology. While I was never a fan of Kerry, I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone in the Bush organization.

Lets focus on the real reason I believe Bush is a poor President and even a poorer leader. By being an ideologue, Bush is lead whole-heartedly by his religious convictions. While religion provides conform and strength, by governing with a strict neo conservative Christian manner, are we really any better than the government of Iran (they too are lead by ideologues in the form of an Islamic state). Bush doesn’t seem to see the full picture when it comes to the ideas of the United States verses his ideals, they do not mesh. Stem cell research is a prime example. Instead of governing by reason and science (facts), he uses religious dogma based on conjecture and his interpretation of biblical writings. This is dangerous as it gives us a one-dimensional view of our world and our society as a whole.

Bush’s stance of “you are either with us or against us” sets a dangerous precedence in American history. Even before the UN and NATO, the US tended to strive for unity against oppressors. (Even during the Revolutionary war, we used France’s assistance). Instead of compromise and teambuilding, he seems to be more focused on agendas. Lets us also not forget that the basic reason for justifying this war was WMD. OK Bush, where are they? Could it be they never existed? Could it be that you lied or allowed your advisors (Cheney and Rumsfeld) to talk you into such an endeavor?

I will not focus on the basic fact that Bush isn’t among the most intelligent of Presidents. I also won’t focus that Bush and a great deal of his advisors have skirted their duties in time of war. (Cheney and Ashcroft being the biggest abusers of the system). Bush has managed to accomplish some things because of the intelligence of Rice and Powell. Still, I am disappointed that these two scholars would allow a mental midget define their legacies.

I hope the democrats will be able to suppress the Bush machine. Only after Bush and his gang of cronies are gone, will we really be able to see the damage that has been done.

Just my two..

BTW: I am Libertarian. I wish a third party would make a good showing for once!

 

I am certain that someone better-educated than myself will take up the debate for the majority of this post, but I cannot help but address this particular point since it makes my teeth grind every time I see someone mention it.

The UN allowed Hussein and his regime 12 years to create and hide the frequently-mentioned WMD. The UN inspectors would ask and be sent to an incorrect facility. They would ask again and be told "no". They would run back to the UN council and the council would grant an extension to continue a diplomatic approach. They would return with another request to inspect the disarming and destruction of the WMD and be given the same run-around as before. When was enough going to be enough? When he launched a long-ranged missile at Israel for some perceived slight? Perhaps when he targetted a U.S. installation with terrorist-like demands?

Much like a child, if you give a threat or ultimatum, you had better be prepared to back it up if your terms are not met. If you do not, you have told the child that you never will and they can do anything they want with no reprocussions. Not only does that apply to children, but it also applies to small-minded bullies like terrorists and the former regime. Bush and his allies were the only ones willing to put it all on the line and say "enough". Thank goodness for it. In many cases it seems to be ending their careers, and I'm sorry to see that.

In the midst of the search for the mystery WMD, a few things have been dug up in the desert. Perhaps you remember this...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/14/sprj.irq.main/
Does that mean nothing? Should we have let that continue? Where are the soft-hearted cries for consideration of humanity for those people?

In keeping with the rest of the thread, I find it interesting that Hitler is mentioned, but I have heard very little reference regarding the genocide Hussein was committing in Iraq. The way it was portrayed, we heard a brief mention shortly after the graves were found, then the loud cries of "sure, but where are the weapons?" continued. I have also heard so many claims of how sad it is to see Americans fighting a senseless war. Tell the mother of the child who wore the shirt in this picture how senseless it is to put an end to that genocide.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm
Of course, she was probably buried next to her son. I'm sure they committed some terrible crime to deserve death and improper burial. That doesn't matter, though, right? As a mother, it sickens me to think we could let something like that be pushed aside for some political agenda.

I've drifted a little off-topic. Let's see if I can sum it all up. There may be WMD. There may not be. Iraq is a pretty big stretch of sand to expect anything that has been hidden for 12 years or more to be found in a fraction of that time. In the meantime, the regime that was ended and the attrocities that have been stopped...I consider those "minor" things to be more than enough justification for the continued war effort.

A registered Democrat that will loudly and proudly cast a vote for Bush later in the year,
Emily

 

Mr. Engineer,

In order for the Libertarian Party (I'm a former member.) to be more viable it needs to be more intelligent and articulate in the presentation of its ideas and disassociate itself from the "kooks" within their ranks.

The last Libertarian presidential candidate who did well in the general election was Ed Clark in 1980. Clark represented the finest tradition of the Libertarian Party. He was articulate, pragmatic, and intellectually honest.

During his run he received accolades from some of the nation's major newspapers (Washington Post, NYT, LA Times, etc.). When was the last time any other LP presidential candidate received such rave reviews?

Clark had a vision for America, not just rhetoric. He focused on the issues of importance to the average voter. He discussed energy, unemployment, taxes, civil liberties, education, foreign affairs, crime, military spending , etc. , proposing bold, comprehensive, feasible solutions.

From his principled convictions and vision, he proposed sweeping, hard-nosed practical programs. Clark was a rarity in politics. He was a statesman who looked to the future, not a politician who looked to the next election.

LP Presidential candidates after 1980, with the possible exception of Harry Browne, were political gadflies. Ron Paul left the GOP after writing a scathing letter to the Party hierarchy. He was the LP nominee in 1988. Today he is a GOP congressman from Texas. Before returning to the GOP he briefly flirted with one of the many Constitution parties.

The LP just really doesn't have too many "Ed Clarks." Russell Means, Harry Schiff, Karl Hess, Neil Smith, and others who advocate near anarchy and who can't get off the "legalization-of-drugs" bandwagon are making the LP a virtual "one-issue" Party.

In recent years the LP has been viewed as a "party of loonies" with LP candidates storming across the nation campaigning in the nude, smoking pot, from jail cells, as transsexuals, as transvestites, etc. “One-issue” kooks join the Party, run for office, lose, and leave the Party.

A number of the currently announced 2004 LP presidential candidates are “one-issue” aspirants—legalization of drugs, gun rights, anti abortion, non-interventionist foreign policy, etc. The LP will only be taking as a serious alternative when and only if more "Ed Clarks" emerge and when and if the Party gets back to the kinds of ideas put forth by Clark in his brilliant 1980 campaign. After 24 years, it’s time!

Had John Anderson not run as an independent in 1980, Clark would have possibly come in third.

Regards,

 

That is the tragedy of the world we live in. It always easy when you think of the "fetus" as a non-human. Throughout history atrocities such as those committed against Israel will find thier foundation in "dehumanizing" the target.

I live in Wichita, KS (basically the third trimester abortion capital of the world), where 28, 34, and 37 week old children are aborted. If it is OK at 12-weeks, how about 25, how about 39. Abortions are performed on infants mere minutes before they could take their first breath.

No, don't try to sell me on semantics. It just doesn't hold water. Murdering a 12-week-old is every bit as bad as a 2-yr old, they are both precious life, with a long (and unsure) future.

Support abortion if you must, but let's give those who don't even have a chance at life the compassion afforded to all who meet the same fate.

 

"Harry Schiff" should have been "Irwin Schiff," my apologies.

 

I could quibble with some of what you've written but you're on the right track.

I call myself libertarian (small 'l') but I'm not ideological. I don't even like the label. "Libertarian", like "liberal", has had different meanings in different times and places. As you surely know, some prefer "classical liberal" to libertarian.

 

Oh, they exist.

Just recently, two artillery shells loaded with Sarin nerve agent were discovered. Do you honestly believe that there aren't more?

 

ONE with Sarin gas and ONE with Mustard gas --- just want to keep the record straight.

The shell contained 3L of Sarin, think about that -- one drop can kill a man, and this shell had three liters.

Luckily (at least according to the left) it is the only one left in all of Iraq and we found it! Great News.

Mike

 

Your facts are misleading. First, most states have a 24-week limit on abortions (not sure about KS). Doctors who exceed the limit are breaking the law. Second, the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester (98.6%, source Planned Parenthood). Third, outlawing abortion does not protect children. Many more children will be born into poverty and will, generally, be unwanted. Fourth, outlawing abortion will endanger women. History proves that women will find other unsafe means to abort a child when legal options are not available. Fifth, a woman's rights should be paramount in this matter. The list goes on and on.

Framing abortion as murder is your view that is not shared by the majority of people in this country - even among pro-lifers. You are free to never have an abortion yourself, but your views don't, and should not, overrule those of a woman who might have to abide by your philosophy.

The pro-life crowd always resorts to hyperbole and absolutes in this debate by implying that everyone who supports abortion is a murderer, and thus has no regard for life. This is callous and irresponsible, as well as patently false. The vast majority of pro-choice women AND men regard life as sacred. Whatever their personal reasons for abortion may be, one could argue that it is that sanctity of life that leads them to make a gut wrenching decision to abort a pregnancy when they know they do not have the resources and support to properly raise a child.

You write, "No, don't try to sell me on semantics. It just doesn't hold water. Murdering a 12-week-old is every bit as bad as a 2-yr old..."

Ironically, it is your semantics that are cloudy. Most of us would consider a 12-week old as a child BORN 12 weeks ago. So is your hypothetical 2 year-old actually 15 months in the world and 9 months in the womb, or is your two year-old really 33 months old? Was your child’s first birthday celebrated at 3 months after birth? By your rules it should have been.

 

Let's get something straight here for you conservatives. First and foremost, regardless of your religous beliefs, they canot be used in a political or intellectual discussion. God, faith, and all things of that nature are all based upon FAITH, and not FACT. So for the sake of sanity, please do not mention God again and keep this conversation logical and intelleigent.

 

What? When did that happen? I've been watching the news but all I could see were pyramids of naked Iraqis.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/17/usarin.xml

 

I wasn't really wanting to argue statistics, but OK. Like most pro-choice supporterss, you seem to only want to talk percents, not talk about numbers. First you are accurate on your information. Abortion is legal without reason up to 24 weeks in all 50 states. Many states have health exceptions for third trimester procedures, but only 3% of the abortion clinics in the US will perform it. Late term abortions only make up 1.2% of all abortions, so according to you no big deal.

Here are the percents: <8wks, 52.8%, 9-10, 22.5%, 11-12, 10.6%, 13-15,6.1%, 16-20, 4.2%, and 21wks or greater, 1.2%. The tragedy is that there were 1.31million abortions in 2001, making 15,720 late term abortions on viable babies.

In your list of rights, who looks out for them??

You are correct. Technically "murder" is the unlawful taking of another human's life, and in this case it is legal. I will refrain from that characterization during this debate.

I am not protecting a "philosophy", only playing the advocate for one who has none.

So why not discard any child that becomes a disruption or drain on the resources. This was my point, dehumanize the "fetus" and it will ease your conscience that a life never existed. I don't recall saying everyone who supported abortion was a murderer, but I do say those that support abortion place less value on life than those that oppose it.

Hyperbole, how? I showed you the numbers. Dr. Tiller (from Wichita, KS) is one the most famous late term abortion doctors in the country, I showed you the numbers (over 1100 in KS alone), how did I exaggerate.

I am not using semantics, for me a life is a life is a life. It is the pro-abortion crowd that wants to determine when something is a child and something is not. I celebrate my children's birthday on their "birth" day -- that is what means. I don't recall every suggesting that we change it to conceptionday, so argument is moot. You knew exactly what I was talking about, but decided to launch a bomb rather than debate.

Thanks

 

You could not be more wrong. A man of faith (be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc.) cannot - and should not - be seperated. Christianity is not a creed, practice, or what I do on Sunday -- it is who am I, not what am I. My faith and beliefs play a strong part on how my personality and positions are shaped --- just as yours are.

I assure you many of the positions you take will find some basis in faith. We cannot develop a world view without. You don't see me suggesting that you discard any sense of value, moral, upbringing, etc. you have. Taking potshots (like assuming God cannot be injected into logic and intelligence) or that Christians cannot engage in political or intellectual debate simply due to their influences just makes you look foolish

 

You really need to get a clue. Our FAITH is based on FACT!

In addition, God created logic and intelligence.

BLD