Bush / Kerry / Nader

I see so many comments on the off-topic board about Bush, Kerry, and Nader.

Now, with all emotion aside, is there really any difference between Bush and Kerry?
This must be the worst choice of leadership our nation has had in its history.
As for Nader, we know he is just nuts, so why bother there.

C'mon all emotions aside. Help me understand the difference between these two goobers, please

 

I think there is a big difference.

Bush really believes in whatever he does and sticks to it no matter how stupid it is, and doesn't seem to want to make changes once his mind is made up.

Kerry doesn't seem to be able to stand for anything, and wants to let everyone sway him to every side of every issue.

But, I get your point!

 

A friend of mine used to work for the Texas Rangers when Bush owned them, and said he's a genuinely nice and down-to-earth person.

I've met John Kerry more than once, and he's a pompous, arrogant, condescending jerk.

I'm not thrilled with Bush by a longshot, but I'll take someone like him over someone that will do or say anything to be elected.

 

Bush is against killing babies.

Kerry is for killing babies.

 

What a crock...

Bush is also "for" raping the environment, corporate greed, and unbridaled military opportunism (some of which results in "killing babies", I'm sure)

Kerry is also "for" treating people fairly, ensuring that corporations contribute their fair share to the tax base, and for a reasoned approach towards engaging our military, not to mention a national health care program which might actually save some "babies" who are born to underprivileged and under-insured families.

 

Carl,
While the rest of your post is complete nonsense, at least you don't deny the fact that Bush is against killing babies and Kerry is for killing babies. This alone tells you the moral fiber of the men. Anyone that is for abortion is amoral at best and not fit to lead our nation.

 

Bush: Taxes... Bad!
Kerry: Taxes... Good!

 

Bush vs. Kerry

You know, Bruce, I find myself increasingly swayed by some of your logic surrounding your support of Bush - yes I know, that's hard to believe given my usual postings.

The "nice guy" thing is huge in politics. I've also known a Democrat who was a jerk, and should never have been elected (governor), but he was. And I've know that the elder Bush is also a "nice guy" (my wife knows him personally as a former Yale alumni). That got me voting for him in the past, but I can't quite bring myself to do the same with the son.

I'm concerned that the "nice guy" thing is not enough to excuse the other negative items about Bush - his singlemindedness and devotion to purpose also can be seen as arrogance and inflexibility. One thing about good old Vladimir Lenin is that he was a pragmatist (remember the N.E.P., after War Communism from history of the Bolshevik Revolution?). Pragmatism is good in a statesman, regardless of the politics.

Kerry being an arrogant jerk is disturbing, but I do think his pragmatism is more what we need right now than the "nice guy" with an arrogant certainty of purpose running amok through world politics - especially since I do believe he doesn't really understand, or care to understand, much about cultural diversity, or even basic geography.

 

Nonsense? I think not!

Morality in this issue is certainly subject to debate.

For example, if one were a situational ethicist, one could say that it is "moral" to do what is best for "oneself" (i.e., the woman who doesn't want to have the baby).

If one were a "rules deontologist", or even more so a "divine command theory" proponent then yes - abortion is clearly immoral, since the church and its teachings tell us so (although I do not believe that the Bible specifically mentions it, maybe our Biblical experts can clarify?).

If one were a utilitarian, then one could say that the moral thing is what is best for most of the people, with a principle of beneficence applied - in that scenario, one could make a case for abortion being "moral", since the addition of unwanted and uncared-for children in the world is hardly in the best interests of society as a whole.

So you see, the moral issue is somewhat unclear, unless of course you believe and follow everything your undoubtedly fundamentalist religion tells you without question.

Is that also nonsense?

 

Carl,
Let's simplify it for you.

Abortion = Murdered baby.

BTW, I'm not a fundamentalist.

BLD

 

I have a simplification for you too....

War = many murdered babies

Is it sometimes "moral" to go to war?

 

Yes.

 

So... if it is sometimes moral to go to war, then is it not also sometimes moral to allow a woman to have an abortion, especially if that child is unwanted, will be unsupported, and will simply add to the burden of society?

Logic would dictate the answer to be "yes".

Could you explain to me why this might not be the case, given our discussion and commentary so far?

 

Carl,
There is a huge difference between the two scenarios. In the case of a just war innocent lives are not purposely taken. While there is no doubt that there are innocents lost, the goal is certainly not to kill them.

In abortion there is one specific target, which is an unborn child that has never done anything justifying the death penalty. A mother and her doctor choose to kill the baby.

You ask if this is not justfied if the child is "unwanted, will be unsupported, and will simply add to the burden of society." Why not use that same criteria on all two-year-old children. Do you really think we have the right to pick out which children should and should not be killed based on your criteria? Why should it matter whether the child is still in the womb or not?

In an earlier post you tried to paint Bush as some type of a Nazi. Your suggestion about which children should be aborted is the closest thing to Nazism I've seen to date. Just change the words "unwanted," "unsupported," and "add to the burden of soceity," with "Jew" and you've just joined the party.

BLD

 

Godwin's Law again...

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Ooops - I win this time.

- Carl

 

In other words, you can't answer the question and are bailing out.

BLD

 

Nope...

No, I can answer the question just fine, it is just that once someone tries to paint one's opponent as adopting Nazi beliefs and tactics, it becomes rather difficult to have an intelligent discourse.

So... forgetting that for a minute, here's how I would answer the question you pose.

While I would not choose to have an abortion myself, were I a woman, I can certainly understand why some women believe that they should have a right to choose, and why they feel that an underdeveloped fetus is hardly at the same stage of human development as an actual born baby. I can also understand the tremendous burden that having children can place on a person, since I have several myself. By extrapolation, I can understand then why someone would choose to not have a child at a given time in their life, in particular if it meant ruining one's future prospects for prosperity and eventually having a more stable life and income for having children in the future.

The pro-choice crowd definitely believes that a woman has a right to decide what goes into, and what comes out of her own body. Until the baby is born, it is still a part of her "body" so to speak.

I'm not saying I totally agree with all of this, but the Supreme Court has supported it, and history seems to indicate that some form of abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, sometimes openly and sometimes clandestinely. If it is that much a part of the human condition, then, I find it illogical to regulate it using twenty-first century methods of coercion and investigation to ensure compliance with a law that essentially intrudes upon an individual's right to self-determination.

 

Bush is for killing babies and adults - in other countries - or does that not count?

 

If I may, I would love to take a crack at this.

While the war may be moral, the targeting of a child is NEVER moral. I know children die in wars and conflicts and it is wrong, regardless of the reasons for the war.

In my lifetime (I am 45), I don't ever recall an instance where children were purposely targeted by our country as a strategy, yet that is exactly what happens in abortion -- the child is willfully and purposely targeted and the death of the child is the strategy.

One must question the moral fiber of any man that supports the "willful" killing of children

Mike