Finall thoughts on Presedential race..

[WaterPog]

His morals? On what basis is there any argument that he has more (or less) moral integrity than John Kerry?

1) Tratorous acts durring the vietnam war. (to call them anything less is ludicris)
2) Stating that he believes life begins at conception yet still voting in favor of legalized child murder (abortion).
3) Voting in favor of the invasion of Iraq, then against funding the invasion, then using the invasion and it's lack of funding to attack President Bush.

Those are the highlights, in my book those 3 points are enough to disqualify someone as having sufficiant moral integrity to lead this country.

Oddly enough, the only people on the entire planet that believe Bush to posess high moral standards are about half of this country. The other half, along with the vast majority of the free world, believe just the opposite.

You are entitled to your oppinion, which is all this statement boils down to. Stating opinion as facts does not magically make them facts. You're smart enough to know this.

What seems to me to be the paramount emotion felt today by Americans is fear. For those who oppose Bush and his policies, the fear is primarily of him. For those who support Bush, the fear is from terrorism and Saddam.

(and I'm pretty close to you in age, Eric, so no using that as an argument against me ).

Dave

I didn't vote for bush out of fear in the slightest, and I think charactorizing the average bush voter as a scared redneck sheep ****er is very very closed minded. I voted against Kerry (actually the democratic party in general) more than anything in truth. I'm very against socialism, which is basically the direction that the democratic party wants to see the country move. Socialism/comunism has been shown time and again to work great on paper and very very poorly in action. I believe people are inherently greedy and lazy, these two facts of life will prevent large scale socialism from ever being effective. You can call it a pesimistic attitude if you like but I see it as realism, compared to the Idealism of the democratic party.

This is the mentality of the average republican in my experiance, and is much closer to the mentality of a vast many people who vote democrat than they will ever admit. You can see this in the makeup of the current legislature.

 

[stock50LX]

1) You are referring to the actions of W during the war, correct? He used his Daddy's influence to avoid service...right?

2) Oh my, God, Guns,and Gays... It's okay to make a preemptive attack on Iraq Killing thousands for false reasons, but since he interprets a fertilized egg as life, we should use the force of the government to make all others conform to "his" morality, because the values of others really don't count as values, right???

3) The President was Commander and Chief the last time I read the Constitution. That would make him responsible, right? But you can blame the poor weapons and lack of armour for our troops in Iraq as Kerry's fault... Couldn't have anything to do with the Bush administration, could it??

The attack on Iraq will make us far more enemies than we can possible kill. But I suspect you would like to try anyway. Study some history. Read a book like Rumor of War, or A Bright Shining Lie, and you may realize how this is just like Vietnam. Only a President who avoids the rational and ignores the lessons of history could get us into this mess.

Unless you are making 300K a year and you want to vote for your own self interests, you have no reason to vote for Bush. The Republican machine is playing you like an instrument

You also need a lesson on the difference between the far left and the center left, Socialism doesn't work?? Go tell the Swededs, Danes, Dutch, Germans, etc. The Democratic platform does not even approach socialism. That would be like me calling you a fascist for supporting Bush. Now, let's all have a single party state with one set of beliefs, and we'll view the rest of the world (who fail to see things like abortion the same way we do) as our enemies. And then we can accuse all those who fail to support our invasion of Iraq as being unpatriotic. Because he's our President and we have to support him, right???

Henry Frick was a great Republican. When asked about potential labor problems due to dangerous working conditions and excessive company control in the company town he ran, he said, I'll just hire half the poor people to kill the other half"

 

[SVTdriver]

I didn't vote for bush out of fear in the slightest, and I think charactorizing the average bush voter as a scared redneck sheep ****er is very very closed minded. I voted against Kerry (actually the democratic party in general) more than anything in truth. I'm very against socialism, which is basically the direction that the democratic party wants to see the country move. Socialism/comunism has been shown time and again to work great on paper and very very poorly in action. I believe people are inherently greedy and lazy, these two facts of life will prevent large scale socialism from ever being effective. You can call it a pesimistic attitude if you like but I see it as realism, compared to the Idealism of the democratic party.

This is the mentality of the average republican in my experiance, and is much closer to the mentality of a vast many people who vote democrat than they will ever admit. You can see this in the makeup of the current legislature.

While I understand that you did not vote out of fear. I heard several people on election day voicing an opinion. And the one that struck me as the most odd. Was a man with a new BMW telling the clerk at a gas station to. "Vote bush. Or you will not have a country to be liberal in." That is trying to use fear to influence (essentially) the vote.

 

[WaterPog]

1) You are referring to the actions of W during the war, correct? He used his Daddy's influence to avoid service...right?

Lemme guess, straight from moveon.org?

A) There's no proof of any coersion to get President Bush into the Air National Guard (from which he was Honerably Discharged). If you can show me some real proof from an impartial source I'll give you a cookie

B) Kerry did everything he could to get out of serving in Vietnam, including joining the National Guard, but was unsuccessful in doing so.

C) The actions that I find reprehensable are the ones he took AFTER he got back.

2) Oh my, God, Guns,and Gays... It's okay to make a preemptive attack on Iraq Killing thousands for false reasons, but since he interprets a fertilized egg as life, we should use the force of the government to make all others conform to "his" morality, because the values of others really don't count as values, right???

It's got nothing to do with God, Guns or Gays, it's got to do with Murder plain and simple. Murder is wrong. If life begins at conception, what is the difference between an abortion and drouning your 6 year old in the river? The Pro-Murder croud has yet to give a suitable answer to that one.

Kerry came right out and said on television that HE BELIEVES that live begins at conception, yet he has no problem doing all he can to keep child murder legal. This is one issue that really is black or white.

3) The President was Commander and Chief the last time I read the Constitution. That would make him responsible, right? But you can blame the poor weapons and lack of armour for our troops in Iraq as Kerry's fault... Couldn't have anything to do with the Bush administration, could it??

You completely missed my point. I'm wasn't saying that any of it was anybody's fault, simply that Kerry has no scruples and is willing to do whatever it takes to win votes. When it was in his best interest to support the war he did, and when it was in his best interest to attack the president over the same war he did.

The attack on Iraq will make us far more enemies than we can possible kill. But I suspect you would like to try anyway. Study some history. Read a book like Rumor of War, or A Bright Shining Lie, and you may realize how this is just like Vietnam. Only a President who avoids the rational and ignores the lessons of history could get us into this mess.

Unless you are making 300K a year and you want to vote for your own self interests, you have no reason to vote for Bush. The Republican machine is playing you like an instrument

You also need a lesson on the difference between the far left and the center left, Socialism doesn't work?? Go tell the Swededs, Danes, Dutch, Germans, etc. The Democratic platform does not even approach socialism. That would be like me calling you a fascist for supporting Bush. Now, let's all have a single party state with one set of beliefs, and we'll view the rest of the world (who fail to see things like abortion the same way we do) as our enemies. And then we can accuse all those who fail to support our invasion of Iraq as being unpatriotic. Because he's our President and we have to support him, right???

Henry Frick was a great Republican. When asked about potential labor problems due to dangerous working conditions and excessive company control in the company town he ran, he said, I'll just hire half the poor people to kill the other half"

Lemme guess, you're about 20 and think that all war is evil? You like the idea of abortion because it allows you to go have sex with your girlfriend and not worry about having to take responsibility for it? am I getting warm?

You want to call me a sheep, go ahead. But don't for a moment pretend that I don't know exactly where you're coming from.

 

[WaterPog]

While I understand that you did not vote out of fear. I heard several people on election day voicing an opinion. And the one that struck me as the most odd. Was a man with a new BMW telling the clerk at a gas station to. "Vote bush. Or you will not have a country to be liberal in." That is trying to use fear to influence (essentially) the vote.

Yet saying "Vote for Kerry or the whole world will hate us!" isn't?

I heard essentially the same argument used from Kerry supporters in the days leading up to the election. Essentially that if bush stayed in office we'd end up in a great depression and the whole world would turn on us. Basically that we'd be WW2 Germany if bush stayed in the whitehouse.

It's just like statistics, you have to learn to ignore the extremes to understand the truth.

 

[STANGBOYTOM]

It's the presidents job to be non biast on Abortion, It's about the seperation of church and state. You can't use your religion to make judges for a country that may, or may not agree with your beliefs.

 

[STANGBOYTOM]

I meant make judgements, not judge. I need to read through before posting, oops.

 

[WaterPog]

On the contrary, that's the Judicial branch's job. The executive and Legislative branches are there to represent the people, and use their judgment to do what they think the people want.

They find out how well they did when their re-election comes arround

It also has nothing to do with separation of church and state (which I would also defy you to find defined anywhere in the founding papers of our country, but that's a whole other topic). It has to do with murder being wrong, which almost all people intrinsicly know, and the definition of what is murder and what is not.

IMHO, if it's a life then to end it is murder. Would you argue that a parrent has the right to kill his/her 1 month old child?

 

[SVTdriver]

On the contrary, that's the Judicial branch's job. The executive and Legislative branches are there to represent the people, and use their judgment to do what they think the people want.

They find out how well they did when their re-election comes arround

It also has nothing to do with separation of church and state (which I would also defy you to find defined anywhere in the founding papers of our country, but that's a whole other topic). It has to do with murder being wrong, which almost all people intrinsicly know, and the definition of what is murder and what is not.

IMHO, if it's a life then to end it is murder. Would you argue that a parrent has the right to kill his/her 1 month old child?

No but I would say that if you want to take away the right to choose. Then everyone who wants to take away that right should have to adopt the unwanted babies. There are enough problems with unwanted children as is. Why outlaw abortion and have more unwanted children?

 

[Darkness]

People are just going to keep aborting no matter what, its better to do so than to have a child come to life to parents that dont either love them or dont have the means to support them or whatever reasons they might have not to want them. I'm pro choice on this one.

As for socialism, it actually worked pretty good in europe, but communism was never implemented as a regime, no government ever claimed to have established a communist system, in fact, no government can ever claim to have established a communist system, since the very existence of that government shows that the system is not communist. It was socialism in a police state. Communism in theory is actually good, very much utopian, but it was impossible to put to practice.

 

[WaterPog]

No but I would say that if you want to take away the right to choose. Then everyone who wants to take away that right should have to adopt the unwanted babies. There are enough problems with unwanted children as is. Why outlaw abortion and have more unwanted children?

So because people aren't responsible enough to take care of their kids we should just let them kill them? How about you keep your d!ck in your pants instead? (that would be the generic you, not directed at YOU in particular)


So paul, since Charles Manson would have just kept killing people we should have not locked him up? Or was his crime killing adults instead of children?

 

[ChrisWeil]

To say that socialism doesn't work in application is 100% false. Some of the countries with the highest quality of life are in countries with socialist governments, where there are very few needs-but-dont-haves, because everyone will get health care, everybody can afford to go to college (because it's all free), nobody is homeless (that's an american thing), and people are extremely happy. You ask THEM if it doesn't work.

Communism works great on paper, yes. Communism, on paper, is extremely left wing. "Communism", as has been played out in various countries across the world, has never even APPROACHED leftist-Marxist theory. They've been been extremely, extremely right wing ultra-conservative. Comparing whats looks "good on paper" and "doesn't work in real life" is apples and oranges because the philosophies and policies are completely different. The world has yet to experience a leftist communism state as Marx wrote it, save for the thousands of communistic communities you see all over the world, particularly the middle east (kibbutzes, etc), which work very well and have been that way for hundreds of years.

We most definitely DO have a defined seperation of church and state; rather, we SHOULD but it's becoming more and more blurred as politicians are running on their conviction and strength of moral codes. I'll even go finding in writing for you. Making laws on moral issues should absolutely NEVER happen, and it enfuriates me to think that people are willing to pass laws because "it says they can't in the bible". Not everyone is christian, not everyone has to share "your" morality. Doesn't that contradict the freedom that Bush and many politicians these days are preaching? If america's goal is to promote freedom around the world, how come they aren't doing it here? But really, they should only be allowed the same freedom as you and I if they fall within your moral guidelines, lest they be caste aside from any government given rights. I don't know, but telling gay people they cannot marry sounds like "discrimination" to me, and I don't care if the constitution doesn't say "sexual preference", the spirit of the law is to protect EVERYONE'S freedoms. I don't see them doing that here...unless of course, the bible allows it. Preaching one set "way" of life is a very fascist ideal...that's definitely not a setup thats works very well either, is it?

This morality BS really irks me.

 

[WaterPog]

To say that socialism doesn't work in application is 100% false. Some of the countries with the highest quality of life are in countries with socialist governments, where there are very few needs-but-dont-haves, because everyone will get health care, everybody can afford to go to college (because it's all free), nobody is homeless (that's an american thing), and people are extremely happy. You ask THEM if it doesn't work.

Communism works great on paper, yes. Communism, on paper, is extremely left wing. "Communism", as has been played out in various countries across the world, has never even APPROACHED leftist-Marxist theory. They've been been extremely, extremely right wing ultra-conservative. Comparing whats looks "good on paper" and "doesn't work in real life" is apples and oranges because the philosophies and policies are completely different. The world has yet to experience a leftist communism state as Marx wrote it, save for the thousands of communistic communities you see all over the world, particularly the middle east (kibbutzes, etc), which work very well and have been that way for hundreds of years.

We most definitely DO have a defined seperation of church and state; rather, we SHOULD but it's becoming more and more blurred as politicians are running on their conviction and strength of moral codes. I'll even go finding in writing for you. Making laws on moral issues should absolutely NEVER happen, and it enfuriates me to think that people are willing to pass laws because "it says they can't in the bible". Not everyone is christian, not everyone has to share "your" morality. Doesn't that contradict the freedom that Bush and many politicians these days are preaching? If america's goal is to promote freedom around the world, how come they aren't doing it here? But really, they should only be allowed the same freedom as you and I if they fall within your moral guidelines, lest they be caste aside from any government given rights. I don't know, but telling gay people they cannot marry sounds like "discrimination" to me, and I don't care if the constitution doesn't say "sexual preference", the spirit of the law is to protect EVERYONE'S freedoms. I don't see them doing that here...unless of course, the bible allows it. Preaching one set "way" of life is a very fascist ideal...that's definitely not a setup thats works very well either, is it?

This morality BS really irks me.

[sarcasm]
Yea, morality is bad. You should be able to do whatever you think you want to. Feel like jaywalking, sure go ahead. I wouldn't want to impose my moral judgment on you. Want to rape your neighbors wife? Sure she's got one hell of a body on her, it's her fault for being so hot anyway. Don't want to put up with your nagging kids anymore? Hell just toss them in the river with some cement shoes, it's better than making them live on the street....
[/sarcasm]

What you fail to realise is that ALL laws are based in morality at some point.

Oh, and you call me a christian again and I'll kick you in the balls. You're making some pretty big assumptions there bucko.

 

[Darkness]

So paul, since Charles Manson would have just kept killing people we should have not locked him up? Or was his crime killing adults instead of children?

As long as there's no heart beat in my book its not killing because its not alive yet, or else everytime you'd rub one out you'd be killing millions of "children"

 

[WaterPog]

that's fine, then you should go ahead and vote in favor of abortion if you think it's OK.

My problem with Kerry wasn't that he voted for abortion, but that he did so while stating that he believed life began at conception. He came out publicly and said that he thinks that the fetus is a life yet he has no issue with that life being ended.

That is what shows his morals, not that he is pro abortion. I hope you can see the difference.

 

[ChrisWeil]

Not Christian? Fine. I wasn't spekaing "you" in terms of you so much as the general YOU. The president himself is Christian, as is a good majority of the right (and the country), hence the example. Don't take it personally.

First off, who said "morality" is bad? Yes, I want to rape my neighbors wife and get away with it. That's a GREAT conclusion to draw from what I said. I know you're smart and I know you didn't get that out of it. Either that or the hyperbole/melodrama makes me think you didn't read it.

To put rape and murder and, uh, jaywalking (since when has that been a moral issue?) on the same level as gay marriage is ludicrous.

What I said was that you CANNOT have a "defined" set of "moral values" for a country. My "morality" is not YOUR "morality", so how one one groups morality be it for 275 million people? We can't, and we shouldn't. I don't think anyone's "moral code" would say raping, murdering, pillaging, whatever is good, so why bother insinuating that? Those are laws governing civil rights, not moral issues. Gay marriage for example, though, IS. Why is anyone governing that? Is it HARMFUL to other citizens (as previous violent examples were)? No. Now it just comes down to our good, generally Christian values. Great. See why they wanted a seperation of church and state? Defining what you can and can't do to negatively affect others is one thing, but defining what you can and can't DO (concerning/affecting yoruself only) and BE isn't and should never be the role of the government. It entirely contradicts the idea of "freedom". Since when has "freedom" been defined as "anthing you'd like to be...except what the government condemns"? No more rapist/murderer examples, since we already established that nobody is arguing for that. And don't give me the example of government-assigned work trades in socialist governments, because that's not the same issue.

I don't understand why people think it's ok to have someone elses moral values (which are often religious) crammed down your throat. Yesyes, many moral issues are pretty universal (Don't kill, et al), but certain ones should not be enforced just because the high leader believes it. If you don't think that's fascism, please tell me what it is.

FYI, I hope nobody is taking any of this too much to heart. A good debate is just that. No offense should be intended or taken on any side. All in good fun of debate.

 

[WaterPog]

Making laws on moral issues should absolutely NEVER happen...This morality BS really irks me.

Like it or not Rape and Murder are moral issues. There are people out there who don't think that there is anything wrong with those types of behaviors. There are areas in the world where it is OK for a husband to KILL his wife if she is disobediant for example, yes even today.

Jaywalking is also a Moral issue, seriously...stop laughing, it's about fallowing the rules. Lastly I never once said anything in this whole thread about Gay Maridge, you brought that one up all on your own, and I personally think that the government has no business in maridge at all and should just get out of the whole mess. Make it a purely religious issue and leave it alone, if people want to get married that's between them and their god as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Darkness]

Not Christian? Fine. I wasn't spekaing "you" in terms of you so much as the general YOU. The president himself is Christian, as is a good majority of the right (and the country), hence the example. Don't take it personally.

First off, who said "morality" is bad? Yes, I want to rape my neighbors wife and get away with it. That's a GREAT conclusion to draw from what I said. I know you're smart and I know you didn't get that out of it. Either that or the hyperbole/melodrama makes me think you didn't read it.

To put rape and murder and, uh, jaywalking (since when has that been a moral issue?) on the same level as gay marriage is ludicrous.

What I said was that you CANNOT have a "defined" set of "moral values" for a country. My "morality" is not YOUR "morality", so how one one groups morality be it for 275 million people? We can't, and we shouldn't. I don't think anyone's "moral code" would say raping, murdering, pillaging, whatever is good, so why bother insinuating that? Those are laws governing civil rights, not moral issues. Gay marriage for example, though, IS. Why is anyone governing that? Is it HARMFUL to other citizens (as previous violent examples were)? No. Now it just comes down to our good, generally Christian values. Great. See why they wanted a seperation of church and state? Defining what you can and can't do to negatively affect others is one thing, but defining what you can and can't DO (concerning/affecting yoruself only) and BE isn't and should never be the role of the government. It entirely contradicts the idea of "freedom". Since when has "freedom" been defined as "anthing you'd like to be...except what the government condemns"? No more rapist/murderer examples, since we already established that nobody is arguing for that. And don't give me the example of government-assigned work trades in socialist governments, because that's not the same issue.

I don't understand why people think it's ok to have someone elses moral values (which are often religious) crammed down your throat. Yesyes, many moral issues are pretty universal (Don't kill, et al), but certain ones should not be enforced just because the high leader believes it. If you don't think that's fascism, please tell me what it is.

FYI, I hope nobody is taking any of this too much to heart. A good debate is just that. No offense should be intended or taken on any side. All in good fun of debate.

I tottaly agree with you execpt if it was fascist it wouldnt be on the ballot but by it being on the ballot its right there a show of descrimintation even though I dont agree gays should get married being that marriage is of religious nature and therefore man and woman only. But this should've been given to the different religions to decide for them selves but they'd allow gays to marry next thing up would be people trying to marry their pet!

 

[ChrisWeil]

Like it or not Rape and Murder are moral issues. There are people out there who don't think that there is anything wrong with those types of behaviors. There are areas in the world where it is OK for a husband to KILL his wife if she is disobediant for example, yes even today.

Now we're arguing semantics, because like I was trying to explain, I'm counting "moral issues" as things that are not obviously usurping general human rights. IE, most people with their head on straight and halfway functional know kill=bad, attack=bad, steal=bad, etc.

Given that we're taking about western society and civilization, those places aren't really analogous. I don't agree with them, though.

 

[WaterPog]

Now we're arguing semantics, because like I was trying to explain, I'm counting "moral issues" as things that are not obviously usurping general human rights. IE, most people with their head on straight and halfway functional know kill=bad, attack=bad, steal=bad, etc.

Given that we're taking about western society and civilization, those places aren't really analogous. I don't agree with them, though.

Carefull there, you're making a moral argument and you don't even realise it

It's far from semantics, it's the essence of law. NOT ALL PEOPLE THINK THAT KILLING IS BAD, that's what you have to grasp. NOT ALL PEOPLE THINK THERE IS SUCH A THING AT "general human rights".

You're taking your set of morals and assuming that they are the standard, it's a common falicy and just coincidently happens to be the one you're acusing the president of.

You are not in a position to dictate what is a moral issue and what isn't, every issue is a moral issue like it or not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morals