View Full Version : Who Do you Agree with?
BMT (RIP)
09-12-2008, 11:34
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/MatchoMatic/fullpage?id=5542139
I had a Big Mac attack!!! :D
BMT
Constant
09-12-2008, 13:01
Only one I picked that Obama said and I agreed with, was that marriage should be left to the states; besides that, all McCain.
I agreed with Senator Obama on two points--universal health care and immigration.
What a revolting development this is.
ZonieDiver
09-12-2008, 14:40
I'm with Johnny Mac... "all the way"!
Red Flag 1
09-12-2008, 15:26
McCain.
RF 1
bandycpa
09-12-2008, 15:33
I sided with McCain as well. It was hard to pick from a "first look" perspective because I could hear Obama saying "When I become President, I will.." and so on. Like Rush Limbaugh has said before, Obama is more focused on "I" while McCain's statements tend to start with "we". "I" tend to agree with him.
Bandy
I think this was a good test for me. I never listen to their speeches so I dont really know the quotes. I got McCain on all but 3, didnt check which ones.
3 for Obama......I can't believe I did that:(
charlietwo
09-13-2008, 03:28
I got three for Obama as well. This quiz makes the big assumption that the candidate in question will be able to accomplish the goals in their quotes. Bottom line is Obama shouldn't be trusted with a pen flare.:p
I got two for Obama.
Green House gas and the last one.
The last one is a Red Herring. I agree with Obama about what the President should bring into the office - I just disagree with who he thinks has what it takes.
Goggles Pizano
09-13-2008, 08:16
I had a difference of opinion on the Immigration question but the rest was McCain across the board.
answered 1 under economy for BHO... the rest for McCain
jamber97
09-13-2008, 09:55
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
--George S. Patton
That's a very good quote
Goggles Pizano
09-13-2008, 11:21
That's a very good quote
Agreed, however how does it apply to this thread concerning one's political opinion?
That's a very good quote
Jamber97 - no fair - you didn't put your score out.
jamber97
09-13-2008, 14:14
Jamber97 - no fair - you didn't put your score out.
I watch and read quite a bit of the political coverage so I couldn't go through the selections without being biased. I was able to choose all Obama and all MCcain quotes. I tried to be honest on a third pass and I was about even, leaning slightly towards Obama.
USANick7
09-13-2008, 16:27
I had one for Obama on immigration.
This wasn't that great a "test" to determine where you stand.
Some of the quotes were barely discernible, despite the fact that the actual polices advocated to carry out their goals are generally speaking, significantly different.
I will admit, I simply cannot comprehend a vote for Obama. It genuinely puzzles me.
jamber97
09-13-2008, 16:44
I will admit, I simply cannot comprehend a vote for Obama. It genuinely puzzles me.
I could lay out why a vote for Obama will yield the best long term results but I would probably get banned.
Team Sergeant
09-13-2008, 16:55
I could lay out why a vote for Obama will yield the best long term results but I would probably get banned.
From looking at your profile I'd say you're about 21 something, and yes, I really don't want to hear your view on politics, especially concerning a senator that's been in office less than half a year.
I'm also sure you understand the reason why a dimocrat dominated house and senate can get nothing done or why the current congress has the lowest rating in American history.
Spare me your theories. :rolleyes:
BTW, I'm real sick of giving non-working people handouts and I don't care what color their skin is.....
GratefulCitizen
09-13-2008, 17:18
I could lay out why a vote for Obama will yield the best long term results but I would probably get banned.
I'll lay out such a conditional case.
In the event that b-ho comes to power, and there wasn't irreparable damage done during his tenure;
the resultant train wreck would motivate voters to keep the dims out of the oval office for some time.
It would be kinda like jimmy carter followed by the 80's.
IMO, such a path to "best long-term results" isn't worth the risk.
I was with McCain on everything except carbon emissions and abortion, which was pretty much what I expected.
IMO, such a path to "best long-term results" isn't worth the risk.
100% agreement.
I'm embarrassed to say that I got only 6 for McCain. Perhaps that's because I don't listen to much of the political posturing.
I wonder what those who want government subsidized (hence controlled) health care will say when rationing starts? And it will start; to get a vision of where that path leads, simply seek a general care doctor who accepts new Medicare patients.
Ambush Master
09-13-2008, 17:46
As I have said before, obama would make jimmy carter look like RONALD REAGAN!!!
incommin
09-13-2008, 18:06
I ended up with 2 in the Obama column and the rest in Mccain's.....
I could lay out why a vote for Obama will yield the best long term results but I would probably get banned.
Laughed at and pitied, more likely. Out of morbid curiosity, what possible good could Obama bring to my country?
BMT (RIP)
09-14-2008, 09:59
I wonder what ABC think's of the poll result's?
BMT
USANick7
09-14-2008, 10:35
I could lay out why a vote for Obama will yield the best long term results but I would probably get banned.
Well Ill tell you what, if you want to give it a go, Ill hear you out...just as long as we stick to a couple ground rules...
There is such a thing as right and wrong, the law of non contradiction does apply, the English language cannot be rewritten to mean what ever you want.
Agree to those terms and Ill be happy to debate the issue...what say you.
We can go topic by topic. Or if you feel more comfortable, send me a private message.
Surf n Turf
09-14-2008, 11:25
All with McCain, except #7 on border security - which I believe is one of McCain's "blind spots"
SnT
John McCain hands down....
almost an even split 8 obama 7 mccain, kind of how i have felt all along.
USANick7
09-14-2008, 13:59
almost an even split 8 obama 7 mccain, kind of how i have felt all along.
Given the quote you use, I am a little confused by your candidate preference.
The Reaper
09-14-2008, 14:42
Given the quote you use, I am a little confused by your candidate preference.
Exactly.
Obama's background, his political views, and his socialist, pacifist agenda are the very antithesis of Heinlein.
TR
I wonder what ABC think's of the poll result's?
BMT
On this one I took it and got two for Obama. I can't remember which ones though. On some of them it was real hard to figure out what they were really saying....wait, that's kinda like how it is all the time.
charlietwo
09-14-2008, 16:32
Exactly.
Obama's background, his political views, and his socialist, pacifist agenda are the very antithesis of Heinlein.
TR
All this talk about Heinlein is making me want to read Starship Troopers again :D
USANick7
09-15-2008, 14:44
I could lay out why a vote for Obama will yield the best long term results but I would probably get banned.
well jamber...I'm waiting.
Dont worry I got approval..you can speak your mind...lol
My being a fan of Heinlein literature doesn't necessarily make me think all of his ideas are right, just a fan of classic sci-fi writing I suppose. Much like the current candidates I find neither of their ideas entirely appealing mainly due to the party lines they are forced to adopt.
For example the Obama campaign's stance against nuclear energy(well sort of He has said one thing but has Pelosi on his ticket and that says something else).
Or Mccain's ideals on abortion equally stemming from the christian base of the party.
I find the absurd amount of partisanship in the electoral process to be severely handicapping the democratic process. We are frequently forced to pick a "lesser of two evils" candidate and it makes it impossible for an independent to ever have a shot at the executive branch due to the massive inertia of the two parties.
uboat509
09-15-2008, 16:11
Three for Obama. One on taxes because, well, my grounding in economics isn't terribly strong. One on gay marriage because leaving it up to the states strikes me as more of a small government conservative idea than a liberal "the federal government must fix everything" idea. One on immigration because I disagreed with both and just picked one at random.
SFC W
well jamber...I'm waiting.
Dont worry I got approval..you can speak your mind...lol
Oh jamber..."just as a female"...a-hem...am curious as well. Is it Hussein's foreign policy, or Tax-initiatives that you find so endearing? Perhaps it is his good-looks that real you in??? Just asking...:rolleyes:
Holly:)
Trip_Wire (RIP)
09-15-2008, 19:12
McCain of course!
:D
2 for Obama but they were on ones that the answers were unclear
USANick7
09-16-2008, 00:18
My being a fan of Heinlein literature doesn't necessarily make me think all of his ideas are right, just a fan of classic sci-fi writing I suppose. Much like the current candidates I find neither of their ideas entirely appealing mainly due to the party lines they are forced to adopt.
For example the Obama campaign's stance against nuclear energy(well sort of He has said one thing but has Pelosi on his ticket and that says something else).
Or Mccain's ideals on abortion equally stemming from the christian base of the party.
I find the absurd amount of partisanship in the electoral process to be severely handicapping the democratic process. We are frequently forced to pick a "lesser of two evils" candidate and it makes it impossible for an independent to ever have a shot at the executive branch due to the massive inertia of the two parties.
I would argue that the "abortion" issue is fundamental. We actually had a very thorough discussion on this topic on another thread.
To say that the "abortion" issue stems from the Christian side of the party is to pay a compliment; since the argument against abortion is based on science, legality, logic, morality, etc. where as the pro-choice argument is based on subterfuge.
I am willing to bet (although I admittedly don't know yet) that you don't truly support abortion as it is logically defined; but rather support it by its false presentation as a defense of individual liberty.
Not to mention, that opposing something because it comes from the "Christian" side doesn't tell us much except that you possess a prejudice against the "Christian" side. In which case it begs the question, is a policy position "bad" because it derives its grounding or support from the Christian world view?
As far as the 2 parties argument...can you demonstrate how a multi party system would work better practically? I am forever hearing about the vices of a two party system, yet seldom if ever do I observe a practical application of a multi party system that I would prefer. I might also add that we ARE a multi party system. People have DEMOCRATICALLY chosen to throw their support behind 2 parties, so how can you claim that our system "undermines" the democratic process, when it is the democratic process which has chosen it?
Unless of course you are arguing against the "winner take all" system is the problem, and would instead prefer we assign seats in congress or respective legislatures according to proportion of votes. In which case you would not so much vote for an individual candidate but a party. Of course now you are no longer voting for the individual as much as you are the party, and you have taken the regional consideration out of the process and are now merely voting for a representative at large, there by somewhat undermining Federalist principles.
greenberetTFS
09-16-2008, 11:18
John McCain hands down....
SF_BHT,
Ditto.....;)
GB TFS :D
I am forever hearing about the vices of a two party system, yet seldom if ever do I observe a practical application of a multi party system that I would prefer.
The Canadians I work with daily don't see a significant advantage to their multi-party system, only 'lack of confidence' votes and costly national elections occuring too frequently.
jamber97
09-16-2008, 13:09
well jamber...I'm waiting.
Dont worry I got approval..you can speak your mind...lol
Is there a perfect candidate for president? No, McCain/ Palin has just as many if not more draw backs than Obama/Biden but you wouldn't know that from reading here or in listening to conservative talk radio. Talk radio is propaganda on both sides. Conservative talk radio hated McCain and talked about him like he was the anti Christ, until he became the nominee.
Focusing on the issues, Obama and a Democratic congress is in a better position to accomplish his plans than would be a McCain and a Democratic congress. The Republican philosophy has been tested and has its flaws. Privatization and deregulating things has proven to be disastrous. Allowing lobbyist to create your policy on such a large scale doesn't put the interest of the country first; it puts the interest of the organizations who are lobbying first. Hence the big mess we're in now.
I find that both party's and their followers tend to go to the extreme in their philosophy. It seems that as humans we tend to do this. Obama seems more willing to move to the center and has proven to be more right than wrong in his public stance on the issues in comparison to other candidates.
I vote based upon the issues and the candidates general philosophy. I don't label the candidate or put them into a category. I voted for 2 terms of Bush because I believed in his philosophy and approach. I felt we could see if it would work, given 8 years for it to be put into practice. The result wasn't what I expected hence the approach needs to be changed. I feel that Obama is that change and McCain represents a failed philosophy.
I don't agree with either candidate on all the issues but I don't see McCain giving us the best chance to improve where our countries at.
I agree with Obama on the economy, Iraq, terrorism, middle east, taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations, social security, abortion, Gun policy and crime, Gay rights, Poverty, the courts, government reform and his choice of team members.
I agree with McCain on Diplomacy, healthcare, Energy, education
They both have a similar approach on the environment and immigration.
Based upon my areas of agreement, I see Obama and a democratic congress being able to accomplish a great deal more than McCain and a democratic congress.
I agree with Obama on the economy, Iraq, terrorism, middle east, taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations, social security, abortion, Gun policy and crime, Gay rights, Poverty, the courts, government reform and his choice of team members.
Based upon my areas of agreement, I see Obama and a democratic congress being able to accomplish a great deal more than McCain and a democratic congress.
How Sad!
HOLLY
Peregrino
09-16-2008, 13:38
I agree with Obama on the economy, Iraq, terrorism, middle east, taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations, social security, abortion, Gun policy and crime, Gay rights, Poverty, the courts, government reform and his choice of team members.
The People's Cube is calling you.:munchin
1. Iraq: he was wrong at the beginning, middle, and now at the end; when he tried to delay the agreement to draw down the troops for the political benefit of his image and the cost of American lives. On this point alone he does not deserve to be in a position to be the CIC!!! Which by the way equals his staff member’s misstep with Canada’s on the NAFTA, playing global politics before he’s elected. A dangerous ego in my book, and quite possibly a glimmer of his treasonous attitude
2. terrorism, where do you live. I'll bet it's not NYC or any place where there is a population of rag heads. BHO will not fight the war, no different then Clinton.
If you take the time to read a thread here (I'll find it for you after this post) it contains all the dims comments through the clinton Presidency on the support to invade Iraq. And this was before the towers came down up the street from me. You are not aware enough, but I help take you to that dark abyss called reality.
This supports #2
By Abe Greenwald
Making it through the past seven years without a terrorist attack in the Unites States constitutes a miracle even if Democrats pretend it does not. Such a national security achievement is the result of smart initiatives and the judicious employment of military force, even if President Bush's critics treat it as sheer good luck. That such luck has selectively eluded Great Britain, Spain, Russia, China, Indonesia, and Turkey (to name but a few) during the same period of time is habitually ignored by those making the case against "the worst president in U.S. history."
While al Qaeda has managed to explode buses, trains and buildings in other world capitals, the United States--the terrorists' number-one enemy--has thwarted at least 19 terrorist plots and killed or captured thousands upon thousands of Islamist terrorists. Yet, we are supposed to lament the great squandering of world sympathy and national resources foolishly overseen by our President in his misguided War on Terror.
If by "world sympathy" critics are referring to the 24-hour cycle of weeping international headlines that followed the attacks of September 11 or to the cc's of Yasser Arafat's donated (and almost certainly infected) blood, then they're right: George W. Bush failed to put such valuable assets to work for America. And if by "resources" they mean American aid, then they are right there, too: Though Bush did increase international aid by an unprecedented 50 percent in three years, he failed to transform the U.S. - already the largest benefactor in world history - into a pure patron-state devoted to the health and well-being of its enemies. We will just have to live with the legacy of these missed opportunities.
But if by "world sympathy" one means the ethical self-interest of free countries in seeing that America remains the most powerful player on the globe, then President Bush has certainly made the most of a dwindling supply. At the time of the September 11 attacks, some key European countries were under the leadership of uniquely anti-American opportunists. To be sure, French President Jaques Chirac was more interested in the price of oil than the price of freedom, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was adept at exploiting anti-American sentiment in order to consolidate popular support and cozy up to Russia. Even so, France, Germany and other NATO allies contributed to the coalition effort against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bush even got Russia to provide the hospital in Kabul, used to treat coalition forces and Afghan civilians.
If Afghanistan is supposedly the "good war" and Iraq a disastrous war of choice, then Bush's critics need to explain why our coalition for the former was so similar to our coalition for the latter. The main difference is that the two most cynical partners in Afghanistan--Chirac's France and Schroeder's Germany--bailed out on Iraq for the most cynical reason: financial partnership with autocrats. Happily for everyone, we are prevailing in Iraq without the help of France and Germany, and those two nations can now boast of dynamically pro-American leaders who, for the most part, share our level of commitment to the War on Terror.
In terms of resources, there is no doubt that America has paid a heavy price in blood and treasure to ensure that our homeland has remained safe these seven years. It is this very sacrifice on the part of so many men and women that demands an honest accounting of America's progress against her enemies. For, even though Democrats use careful language in discussing our troops and they throw around terms like honor and duty, they imply in their every snicker and denouncement that American lives have also been squandered in Iraq. That brand of dishonest sanctimony is conveyed perfectly in something Nancy Pelosi said to Wolf Blitzer in February:
There haven't been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure. The troops have succeeded, God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage and to their families as well. But they deserve better than the policy of a war without end, a war that could be 20 years or longer.
In other words: The troops have succeeded wonderfully in their failure, and by the way God bless them. And if you don't yet grasp the pointlessness of the Iraq War, let me throw out an imaginary figure of 20 years and see if that does the trick.
The troops deserve better.
After September 11, it became clear that the forces of clerical barbarism in the Muslim world had to be destroyed to the best of our ability. Draining the swamp of theocrats would give Muslims a chance to improve their lot in this lifeand decrease the sick desire to atomize themselves into the next. The troops deployed in Iraq have not only succeeded in deposing Saddam's Ba'athist regime, but also in defeating jihadists whose ideology poses a singular threat to American existence. Over the course of the war that Nancy Pelosi calls a failure, support for jihad has plummeted all over the Muslim world. Every major poll indicates popular Muslim disillusionment with Osama bin Laden and his nihilistic tactics. As soldiers and Marines, the men and women fighting in Iraq have done nothing less than ensure the continued existence of the free world. As civilians, we're obligated to let them know we owe them everything.
Every criticism of President Bush's national security record begins rightly with the charge that Osama bin Laden has not been captured or confirmed dead. Any honest defense of Bush must reckon with this fact. The story goes that in 2003 U.S. forces abandoned the hunt for bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan and shifted their focus onto Iraq, giving the al Qaeda leader a free pass so that we could take up arms against a regime unconnected to the attacks of September 11. Let's put aside the fact that this is a false choice. And let's put aside questions about the claim's legitimacy regarding timelines, intelligence agencies, roaming fighters, Iraq's terrorist ties, and the dynamics of force deployment, and simply accept the accusation at its most damning. To wit: Bush lost bin Laden by going into Iraq. Okay: If I were offered the choice of taking out one al Qaeda mastermind who had recently been reduced to the status of cave-dwelling spoken-word artist or more than a thousand senior al Qaeda operatives and tens of thousands of armed Islamist soldiers, I would choose the latter a thousand out of a thousand times.
And the proof is in the pudding. Consider the decimated state of al Qaeda and related organizations since they've come up against overwhelming American force in Iraq. As CIA director Michael Hayden recently put it, we've seen "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally." Would the hunt for one man in the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan have yielded better results? In answering, don't forget the debilitating caution employed by the U.S. inside Pakistani territory (at least until recently) so as not to upset Islamabad.
Again, it's not a real choice, but if the Democrats want to peddle the bin Laden or Iraq line, they should be prepared to say why Bush chose wrong. No, it's not acceptable that Osama bin Laden hasn't been killed or captured, but his evasion of American forces has not occurred in a vacuum. What the U.S. has accomplished apart from the failure to get one man has undoubtedly saved countless American lives, freed millions in the Muslim world, and mobilized anti-radical sentiment throughout global Islam.
The truth is something vital has been squandered in the years since we were attacked. It's not the world's sympathy or money or American lives. I fear we've squandered the chance to remember and relearn what it means to be a part of the longest-running and most honorable revolution in world history. To appreciate not just the fruits of American democracy, but the frustrations and sacrifices that were endured in creating and defending it. Instead of excoriating our president for his blunders and setbacks, we should have been rallying, as a nation, recalling in our history the many times we triumphed in the face of determined and evil adversaries. We're told we've forgotten about the principles of our Constitution, but as Americans sit around and freely describe our elected leaders as fascists and our soldiers as indiscriminate killers, it's clear we've forgotten what it takes to keep those principles alive.
Seven years ago, we all went out and bought American flags and covered everything in red, white, and blue, knowing perfectly well we were heading into years of war. Today, our Democratic nominee for president is at pains to admit to an American victory. Something has indeed been wasted in seven years. But luckily, much as been saved. This is George W. Bush's last September 11 in the White House, and I'd like to take the opportunity to say, "Thank you, Mr. President."
...I agree with Obama on ..... Gun policy and crime, ....
Jamber;
I'll only pick one of your agreements with the Obama/Biden ticket. What is the Obama policy on guns and crime? How does Biden support that position as the VP pick? How in line with that policy is the Democrat platform? Do the Democrats of his party support that position by their votes in the House and Senate?
Pete
middle east
Ok Jamber, before we go down this road; please explain in details your knowledge of the Middle East. Before you do, google Professor William Evans, if you intend on discussing this issue with me. He has spent the last fifty plus years on the issue and is a friend and teacher on this diverse AO.I agree with much of his impartial prespective.
jamber97
09-16-2008, 14:27
1. Iraq: he was wrong at the beginning, middle, and now at the end; when he tried to delay the agreement to draw down the troops for the political benefit of his image and the cost of American lives. On this point alone he does not deserve to be in a position to be the CIC!!! Which by the way equals his staff member’s misstep with Canada’s on the NAFTA, playing global politics before he’s elected. A dangerous ego in my book, and quite possibly a glimmer of his treasonous attitude
He was correct in wanting to focus on Afghanistan and not invade Iraq. He admitted he was off on his approach on the surge but some of his ideas were used in its application. He was correct about implementing a time table on withdraw. That story about him trying to delay the withdraw of troops is bunk in my opinion and denied by him. You can't believe everything you read especially when you check the source.
If you take the same skeptical view of McCain’s candidacy you can drudge up quite a bit of contradictions and reasons why he shouldn’t be president.
USANick7
09-16-2008, 14:32
Is there a perfect candidate for president? No, McCain/ Palin has just as many if not more draw backs than Obama/Biden but you wouldn't know that from reading here or in listening to conservative talk radio. Talk radio is propaganda on both sides. Conservative talk radio hated McCain and talked about him like he was the anti Christ, until he became the nominee.
Focusing on the issues, Obama and a Democratic congress is in a better position to accomplish his plans than would be a McCain and a Democratic congress. The Republican philosophy has been tested and has its flaws. Privatization and deregulating things has proven to be disastrous. Allowing lobbyist to create your policy on such a large scale doesn't put the interest of the country first; it puts the interest of the organizations who are lobbying first. Hence the big mess we're in now.
I find that both party's and their followers tend to go to the extreme in their philosophy. It seems that as humans we tend to do this. Obama seems more willing to move to the center and has proven to be more right than wrong in his public stance on the issues in comparison to other candidates.
I vote based upon the issues and the candidates general philosophy. I don't label the candidate or put them into a category. I voted for 2 terms of Bush because I believed in his philosophy and approach. I felt we could see if it would work, given 8 years for it to be put into practice. The result wasn't what I expected hence the approach needs to be changed. I feel that Obama is that change and McCain represents a failed philosophy.
I don't agree with either candidate on all the issues but I don't see McCain giving us the best chance to improve where our countries at.
I agree with Obama on the economy, Iraq, terrorism, middle east, taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations, social security, abortion, Gun policy and crime, Gay rights, Poverty, the courts, government reform and his choice of team members.
I agree with McCain on Diplomacy, healthcare, Energy, education
They both have a similar approach on the environment and immigration.
Based upon my areas of agreement, I see Obama and a democratic congress being able to accomplish a great deal more than McCain and a democratic congress.
Jamber, I'm sorry to have to call you on a technicality right off the bat, but in order to have a meaningful conversation I am forced...
You stated that you could demonstrate the long term benefits of an Obama presidency, but instead you have just listed off the things you agree with him on.
Concerning the economic comments you made, you offered zero evidence to support your claims. Merely analysis passed off as fact.
Free market economies have out performed centrally planned or heavily regulated ones in just about every category of measurement that we track.
You claim that deregulation and privatization have proven disastrous...how so? In the midst of our own economic down turn our economy has outperformed the socialized economies of Europe.
Furthermore, the downturns in our own economy can hardly be blamed on a lack of government interference. the mortgage crisis was in many ways a direct result of federal interference at the federal level. Every thing from the lowering of interest rates, to a presidential and congressional push towards coercing banKs to give loans to people un-qualified under the guise of "fairness".
What republican philosophy has its flaws?
Would that be the philosophy of free enterprise? Capitalism has been the foundation of our economic growth for the last 232 years. How can you possibly say that privatization has failed? What evidence do you bring to bear? And you beg the question, if privatization has failed, where exactly has nationalization succeeded?
So maybe we should take this one step at a time. One issue at a time.
we can start where you like but I suggest we begin with economic policy.
I will argue from the side of the free market and you will presumably argue from the side of the centrally planned, or at least heavily regulated economy.
I believe that the free market economy works best because it is based on voluntary cooperation as opposed to centrally planned / and or heavily regulated economies which are based off of coercion.
Capitalism due to its competitive nature rewards innovation, efficiency and cooperation. It is color and gender blind. It is concerned only with positive results; positive results being defined as that method which delivers the proper product at the proper price to the consumer.
Centrally planned, or heavily regulated economies assume that a third party has greater insight into the wants and needs of the people directly involved in the transaction. The Soviet Union at its height was attempting to set prices for over 20 million products, which even the smartest economists could not possibly hope to achieve.
your suggestion that privatization and deregulation has produced disastrous results comes without any definition of what a "disastrous result" is.
Are you insinuating that there is some economic system where by we can definitively circumvent human fallibility? And if you are suggesting such a system, who do you propose administer it? Certainly not humans.
You blame free markets for human fallibility. I may make a unwise economic decision, for which i alone can or should be blamed. your suggestion that privatization is the problem is nothing more than a suggestion that a central planner would have not made the same mistake and therefore is capable of conducting my affairs better than I am. While this may work for specific individuals or isolated incidents, can you honestly say that such an arrangement is capable of answering all of life's questions for me or 280 million other Americans on a day to day basis? Are you not suggesting that freedom is therefore to complicated an arrangement and should therefore be discarded?
On a separate but related note, how does one maintain meaningful political freedom without meaningful economic freedom? How much more fundamentally out of touch with our founding principles is my vote if I am merely determining which central planner should run my life?
I might also add, that you began your statement lamenting the failed policies of politicians in general; then just as quickly suggested that we entrust to these politicians one of the most fundamental means by which we exercise our freedom.
If the American revolution was not fought to secure greater self determination for how I earn my living, which takes up the majority of my life, then what exactly was its purpose?
All and all the flaws which you speak of, have little to do with capitalism or free markets, and a great deal more to do with the human condition.
But despite our flaws, capitalism has produced the greatest economic results for the largest amount of people than any other system yet devised by man.
So there is my philosophical defense of free enterprise against centrally or heavily regulated economies.
I await your response.
jamber97
09-16-2008, 14:40
Jamber;
I'll only pick one of your agreements with the Obama/Biden ticket. What is the Obama policy on guns and crime? How does Biden support that position as the VP pick? How in line with that policy is the Democrat platform? Do the Democrats of his party support that position by their votes in the House and Senate?
Pete
Some restrictions on certain types of guns
Supports death penalty in more limited circumstances
Ease some drug sentencing requirements
Undecided on medical marijuana
I haven't reviewed his votes as it relates to guns but he's open to making it more difficult to introduce certain weapons into our market where as McCain wants no restrictions. I also feel that he might be open to making certain drugs legal or moved down on the priority list.
The thread is: Why Iraq was Inevitable. You can locate it in the Middle East section of the forum. You will find a ton of quotes between 1991 and 1998, by Dems to invade from the congressional record and quote from the "news". Review at the sake of losing your naiveté...
I would argue that the "abortion" issue is fundamental. We actually had a very thorough discussion on this topic on another thread.
To say that the "abortion" issue stems from the Christian side of the party is to pay a compliment; since the argument against abortion is based on science, legality, logic, morality, etc. where as the pro-choice argument is based on subterfuge.
I am willing to bet (although I admittedly don't know yet) that you don't truly support abortion as it is logically defined; but rather support it by its false presentation as a defense of individual liberty.
Not to mention, that opposing something because it comes from the "Christian" side doesn't tell us much except that you possess a prejudice against the "Christian" side. In which case it begs the question, is a policy position "bad" because it derives its grounding or support from the Christian world view?
As far as the 2 parties argument...can you demonstrate how a multi party system would work better practically? I am forever hearing about the vices of a two party system, yet seldom if ever do I observe a practical application of a multi party system that I would prefer. I might also add that we ARE a multi party system. People have DEMOCRATICALLY chosen to throw their support behind 2 parties, so how can you claim that our system "undermines" the democratic process, when it is the democratic process which has chosen it?
Unless of course you are arguing against the "winner take all" system is the problem, and would instead prefer we assign seats in congress or respective legislatures according to proportion of votes. In which case you would not so much vote for an individual candidate but a party. Of course now you are no longer voting for the individual as much as you are the party, and you have taken the regional consideration out of the process and are now merely voting for a representative at large, there by somewhat undermining Federalist principles.
Well stated, as are several of your other posts on the matter, particularly the ones Here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19530&highlight=abortion), I admire your reasoning and rhetoric. However, I know the audience here and I have a rough ideal of the prevailing morals that dominate this forum. With that in mind I have no desire to offend you or anyone else here and I am aware that my opinions will be viewed as morally questionable at best and inflammatory at worst, so I would quietly ask to agree to disagree and sit quietly in disagreement while acknowledging your points as valid. Subsequently I have no desire to debate, and little skill at argument as well, rather you (and TR) asked and I answered, although I imagine the preceding post was somewhat unsatisfactory, ahem, my bad.
ZonieDiver
09-16-2008, 14:51
For me, one of the best examples of the negative effect of the national government's interference in matters that should not directly concern it is in the field of education. As the years have passed, the "Feds" have intruded more, and more, and more. Ask yourself, "Is education at almost any level today as good as it was when YOU were in that level of education?" Has all this "free money" and "government wisdom" turned out better or worse students?
I deal with the results of their "well-intended" legislation daily. Trust me, 95% of the time it doesn't help, but severely hinders a students academic performance, a teacher's ability to actually teach SOMEthing, and an administrator's ability to do his or her job. Keep your money! Leave me the heck alone!
GratefulCitizen
09-16-2008, 14:53
Focusing on the issues, Obama and a Democratic congress is in a better position to accomplish his plans than would be a McCain and a Democratic congress.
So?
Does that mean his plans are better?
The Republican philosophy has been tested and has its flaws. Privatization and deregulating things has proven to be disastrous.
Compared to what?
Allowing lobbyist to create your policy on such a large scale doesn't put the interest of the country first; it puts the interest of the organizations who are lobbying first. Hence the big mess we're in now.
In other words:
Lobbyists are self-interested.
What party in congress have they been lobbying for the last 2 years?
Obama seems more willing to move to the center and has proven to be more right than wrong in his public stance on the issues in comparison to other candidates.
This is a bald-faced assertion.
What evidence is there to support this statement?
I vote based upon the issues and the candidates general philosophy.
I feel that Obama is that change and McCain represents a failed philosophy.
I agree with Obama on the economy, Iraq, terrorism, middle east, taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations, social security, abortion, Gun policy and crime, Gay rights, Poverty, the courts, government reform and his choice of team members.
-You don't need too see his identification.
-We don't need to see his identification.
-These aren't the droids you're looking for.
-These aren't the droids we're looking for.
I agree with McCain on Diplomacy, healthcare, Energy, education
So how do you divorce the diplomacy of one from the Iraq/terrorism/middle east policy of the other?
-Or- taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations of one from the energy policy of the other?
-Or- education from all of the above?
(civilian national security force...)
They both have a similar approach on the environment and immigration.
Similarly to the left.
Based upon my areas of agreement, I see Obama and a democratic congress being able to accomplish a great deal more than McCain and a democratic congress.
Name one significant democratic party plank where disagreement is tolerated.
All of the specific issues aside, Obama has demonstrates one character weakness which in itself I find disqualifying:
He is afraid to make the hard decision which may cost him dearly in the political arena.
That sort of indecisiveness is fine in the legislative branch.
It is entirely unacceptable as the leader of the free world.
jamber97
09-16-2008, 14:57
Jamber, I'm sorry to have to call you on a technicality right off the bat, but in order to have a meaningful conversation I am forced...
You stated that you could demonstrate the long term benefits of an Obama presidency, but instead you have just listed off the things you agree with him on.
Concerning the economic comments you made, you offered zero evidence to support your claims. Merely analysis passed off as fact.
Free market economies have out performed centrally planned or heavily regulated ones in just about every category of measurement that we track.
You claim that deregulation and privatization have proven disastrous...how so? In the midst of our own economic down turn our economy has outperformed the socialized economies of Europe.
Furthermore, the downturns in our own economy can hardly be blamed on a lack of government interference. the mortgage crisis was in many ways a direct result of federal interference at the federal level. Every thing from the lowering of interest rates, to a presidential and congressional push towards coercing banKs to give loans to people un-qualified under the guise of "fairness".
What republican philosophy has its flaws?
Would that be the philosophy of free enterprise? Capitalism has been the foundation of our economic growth for the last 232 years. How can you possibly say that privatization has failed? What evidence do you bring to bear? And you beg the question, if privatization has failed, where exactly has nationalization succeeded?
So maybe we should take this one step at a time. One issue at a time.
we can start where you like but I suggest we begin with economic policy.
I will argue from the side of the free market and you will presumably argue from the side of the centrally planned, or at least heavily regulated economy.
I believe that the free market economy works best because it is based on voluntary cooperation as opposed to centrally planned / and or heavily regulated economies which are based off of coercion.
Capitalism due to its competitive nature rewards innovation, efficiency and cooperation. It is color and gender blind. It is concerned only with positive results; positive results being defined as that method which delivers the proper product at the proper price to the consumer.
Centrally planned, or heavily regulated economies assume that a third party has greater insight into the wants and needs of the people directly involved in the transaction. The Soviet Union at its height was attempting to set prices for over 20 million products, which even the smartest economists could not possibly hope to achieve.
your suggestion that privatization and deregulation has produced disastrous results comes without any definition of what a "disastrous result" is.
Are you insinuating that there is some economic system where by we can definitively circumvent human fallibility? And if you are suggesting such a system, who do you propose administer it? Certainly not humans.
You blame free markets for human fallibility. I may make a unwise economic decision, for which i alone can or should be blamed. your suggestion that privatization is the problem is nothing more than a suggestion that a central planner would have not made the same mistake and therefore is capable of conducting my affairs better than I am. While this may work for specific individuals or isolated incidents, can you honestly say that such an arrangement is capable of answering all of life's questions for me or 280 million other Americans on a day to day basis? Are you not suggesting that freedom is therefore to complicated an arrangement and should therefore be discarded?
On a separate but related note, how does one maintain meaningful political freedom without meaningful economic freedom? How much more fundamentally out of touch with our founding principles is my vote if I am merely determining which central planner should run my life?
I might also add, that you began your statement lamenting the failed policies of politicians in general; then just as quickly suggested that we entrust to these politicians one of the most fundamental means by which we exercise our freedom.
If the American revolution was not fought to secure greater self determination for how I earn my living, which takes up the majority of my life, then what exactly was its purpose?
All and all the flaws which you speak of, have little to do with capitalism or free markets, and a great deal more to do with the human condition.
But despite our flaws, capitalism has produced the greatest economic results for the largest amount of people than any other system yet devised by man.
So there is my philosophical defense of free enterprise against centrally or heavily regulated economies.
I await your response.
I was trying to imply that a move away from the current approach would improve things in the long run. I’m not recommending a move away from a free market society but as I stated, going to an extreme and leaving things unchecked and unregulated isn’t the way to go.
In the long run you have to protect men from themselves; they'll only do the right thing if there's incentive.
Some restrictions on certain types of guns
Supports death penalty in more limited circumstances
Ease some drug sentencing requirements
Undecided on medical marijuana
I haven't reviewed his votes as it relates to guns but he's open to making it more difficult to introduce certain weapons into our market where as McCain wants no restrictions. I also feel that he might be open to making certain drugs legal or moved down on the priority list.
Details please
What "certain types of guns"?
Like weapons designed for non-hunting uses? Weapons that fire "cop killer" bullets able to go through a "bullet proof" vest? Weapons of a certain length? Weapons with a pistol grip or bayonet lug? Semi automatic weapons? Weapons with detachable maginzines? Weapons with En Bloc clips?
Which weapons and ammunition does he think we can do without?
Details on what he thinks are bad guns.
FWIIW - the company that holds the micro stamping patent is donating real big sums of money to Democrats.
The Reaper
09-16-2008, 15:03
Some restrictions on certain types of guns....
His voting record does not reflect that position.
If he were to have his druthers, I believe that he is from the group of people that believe that all firearms are inherently evil, and private ownership should be prohibited.
Now, having said that, what sort of guns should be restricted, and why?
TR
ZonieDiver
09-16-2008, 15:05
I was trying to imply that a move away from the current approach would improve things in the long run. I’m not recommending a move away from a free market society but as I stated, going to an extreme and leaving things unchecked and unregulated isn’t the way to go.
In the long run you have to protect men from themselves; they'll only do the right thing if there's incentive.
The financial markets are one of the most regulated sectors of our economy. Look what has happened there of late. I contend it is this level of regulation that sets the stage for the types of things that have happened.
As to your closing statement, I tend to side more with John Locke than Thomas Hobbes in my view of most people.
jamber97
09-16-2008, 15:10
Details please
What "certain types of guns"?
Like weapons designed for non-hunting uses? Weapons that fire "cop killer" bullets able to go through a "bullet proof" vest? Weapons of a certain length? Weapons with a pistol grip or bayonet lug? Semi automatic weapons? Weapons with detachable maginzines? Weapons with En Bloc clips?
Which weapons and ammunition does he think we can do without?
Details on what he thinks are bad guns.
FWIIW - the company that holds the micro stamping patent is donating real big sums of money to Democrats.
I don't know as much about the issues as I would like to know. I am striving to learn and understand my world much better than I already do. It was one of the many reasons I joined the site. Quite a few points made so far are over my head at the moment. It's difficult filtering thru all the propaganda coming from both sides of the media. Right now the Republican side seems to be the most manipulative out of the party's which triggers my red flags.
USANick7
09-16-2008, 15:13
Jamber
Who has suggested a completely unregulated economy?
I understand your debating quite a few educated and experienced individuals right now, so please take your time. When you do get a chance I would like a response, but no rush...honestly. I prefer a well thought out response.
Thanks
Jamber97, In detail, explain your position on 2nd admendment rights.
In case you missed it, I'll do the homework for you
In a February 17, 1998 speech at the Pentagon, Clinton focused on what in his State of the Union address a few weeks earlier he had called an “unholy axis” of rogue states and predatory powers threatening the world’s security. “There is no more clear example of this threat,” he asserted, “than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq,” and he added that the danger would grow many times worse if Saddam were able to realize his thoroughly documented ambition, going back decades and at one point close to accomplishment, of acquiring an arsenal of nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons. The United States, Clinton said, “simply cannot allow this to happen.”
“unholy axis” by Clinton = Axis of evil by Bush. This is continuity in Foreign Policy. Only Clinton lacked the courage to pull the trigger.
I almost forgot: “starting in early 1999,” as Kenneth Pollack, an official in Clinton’s National Security Council, would later recount, “the Clinton administration began to develop options to overthrow Saddam’s regime.”
I don't know as much about the issues as I would like to know. I am striving to learn and understand my world much better than I already do........
Then read more, both on line and in print. Find out all you can on an issue. Do not listen to the talking points in the MSM.
What is behind a lawmakers push to pass a bill?
Did the bill passed in 1933 that Clinton allowed to expire in 1999 have anything to do with the meltdown we've seen the last week?
Did the "Fair Lending" Laws passed under Carter (yes Carter) have anything to do with lending practices the past 10 years - gee - that takes us back to 1999.
How are a natural disaster, the rush of business people to move needed supplies into an area and the people who need them effected by anti-gouging laws?
The Reaper
09-16-2008, 15:27
Just like the old saying, "You are, what you eat", You "know" what you are told, until you learn to read between the lines by critical thinking and do your own research.
Don't take our word for it, do some independent reading and study.
Back to Obama's 2nd Amendment positions, and what guns you do not like and why, if you do not mind....
TR
I don't know as much about the issues as I would like to know. I am striving to learn and understand my world much better than I already do. It was one of the many reasons I joined the site. Quite a few points made so far are over my head at the moment. It's difficult filtering thru all the propaganda coming from both sides of the media. Right now the Republican side seems to be the most manipulative out of the party's which triggers my red flags.
Ok, you take a position, but you are unable to articulate why and what that position is based on the issues that you have embraced. How then, can you support any position if you don't have the information in the first place to defend it.
As to your closing statement, I tend to side more with John Locke than Thomas Hobbes in my view of most people.
Jamber will need some time to digest your examples of political thought on social contract.
USANick7
09-16-2008, 16:11
As to your closing statement, I tend to side more with John Locke than Thomas Hobbes in my view of most people.
Jamber will need some time to digest your examples of political thought on social contract.
uh oh....now we get into the debate concerning revelation vs. reason, and the philosophical problems with unaided reason, ethics, etc.
Definitely a conversation for another time...LOL...my hands are quite full for the present!
[QUOTE=jamber97;225157]I was trying to imply that a move away from the current approach would improve things in the long run. I’m not recommending a move away from a free market society but as I stated, going to an extreme and leaving things unchecked and unregulated isn’t the way to go.
QUOTE]
Normally I don't get involved in these discussions, but, the above statement is beyond ignorant. Ever here of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? If not, use Google, it's your friend. :rolleyes:
The structure of your argument does not inspire confidence in your understanding of how the federal government works or in your commitment to informed, civil discourse.
In regards to the latter, you begin by attacking and dismissing an important medium for being 'propaganda.' You also set up a straw man (a candidate as 'perfect') as the central topic of debate among conservatives. I think that the most cursory sampling of the debate among conservatives over the qualifications of either candidate is more nuanced than you indicate.
Your attack continues. You aver that you have analyzed the two campaigns based upon "issues" and "philosophy" in an implicit contrast to the uncritical acceptance of the aforementioned "propaganda" by others, including the members of this forum. In fact, the most casual reading of the threads on this forum reveals significant differences in opinion among its senior members.
In regards to the former, one would be hard pressed to find responsible scholarship that supports your contention that any policy is as heavily influenced by a sitting president or his political philosophy as you suggest. In my own research on the National Security Act of 1947 and the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (arguably the two most important pieces of legislation since the end of the Second World War), I found ample evidence that both acts were influenced by debates that began in the 1800s and that the passage of both acts had little to do with the preferences of either Truman or Reagan.
Additionally, it is a widely believed that the ills of American politics center around the on-going efforts of the House of Representatives to redraw political districts in the states so that elections are less competitive. Add to this dynamic the well-documented indifference of voters to participate actively in politics (beyond voting once every four years), and it becomes rather quite clear that what you call "the big mess" is not just the product of "Republican philosophy."
I believe that your efforts to advance the discussion of contemporary American politics would be more beneficial if you were to approach the subject with a higher level of intellectual curiosity. Addressing those who might disagree with you more respect may also help your cause.
Is there a perfect candidate for president? No, McCain/ Palin has just as many if not more draw backs than Obama/Biden but you wouldn't know that from reading here or in listening to conservative talk radio. Talk radio is propaganda on both sides. Conservative talk radio hated McCain and talked about him like he was the anti Christ, until he became the nominee.
Focusing on the issues, Obama and a Democratic congress is in a better position to accomplish his plans than would be a McCain and a Democratic congress. The Republican philosophy has been tested and has its flaws. Privatization and deregulating things has proven to be disastrous. Allowing lobbyist to create your policy on such a large scale doesn't put the interest of the country first; it puts the interest of the organizations who are lobbying first. Hence the big mess we're in now.
I find that both party's and their followers tend to go to the extreme in their philosophy. It seems that as humans we tend to do this. Obama seems more willing to move to the center and has proven to be more right than wrong in his public stance on the issues in comparison to other candidates.
I vote based upon the issues and the candidates general philosophy. I don't label the candidate or put them into a category. I voted for 2 terms of Bush because I believed in his philosophy and approach. I felt we could see if it would work, given 8 years for it to be put into practice. The result wasn't what I expected hence the approach needs to be changed. I feel that Obama is that change and McCain represents a failed philosophy.
I don't agree with either candidate on all the issues but I don't see McCain giving us the best chance to improve where our countries at.
I agree with Obama on the economy, Iraq, terrorism, middle east, taxes and spending, trade and globalization, labor and business regulations, social security, abortion, Gun policy and crime, Gay rights, Poverty, the courts, government reform and his choice of team members.
I agree with McCain on Diplomacy, healthcare, Energy, education
They both have a similar approach on the environment and immigration.
Based upon my areas of agreement, I see Obama and a democratic congress being able to accomplish a great deal more than McCain and a democratic congress.
USANick7
09-17-2008, 10:29
The structure of your argument does not inspire confidence in your understanding of how the federal government works or in your commitment to informed, civil discourse.
In regards to the latter, you begin by attacking and dismissing an important medium for being 'propaganda.' You also set up a straw man (a candidate as 'perfect') as the central topic of debate among conservatives. I think that the most cursory sampling of the debate among conservatives over the qualifications of either candidate is more nuanced than you indicate.
Your attack continues. You aver that you have analyzed the two campaigns based upon "issues" and "philosophy" in an implicit contrast to the uncritical acceptance of the aforementioned "propaganda" by others, including the members of this forum. In fact, the most casual reading of the threads on this forum reveals significant differences in opinion among its senior members.
In regards to the former, one would be hard pressed to find responsible scholarship that supports your contention that any policy is as heavily influenced by a sitting president or his political philosophy as you suggest. In my own research on the National Security Act of 1947 and the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (arguably the two most important pieces of legislation since the end of the Second World War), I found ample evidence that both acts were influenced by debates that began in the 1800s and that the passage of both acts had little to do with the preferences of either Truman or Reagan.
Additionally, it is a widely believed that the ills of American politics center around the on-going efforts of Congress (in particular the House of Representatives) to redraw political districts in the states so that elections are less competitive. Add to this dynamic the well-documented indifference of voters to participate actively in politics (beyond voting once every four years), and it becomes rather quite clear that what you call "the big mess" is not just the product of "Republican philosophy."
I believe that your efforts to advance the discussion of contemporary American politics would be more beneficial if you were to approach the subject with a higher level of intellectual curiosity. Addressing those who might disagree with you more respect may also help your cause.
Good post Sigaba
Generally speaking...this is why liberals are real careful before sauntering in here and presumptuously attempting to educating us.
Postmodernist thought doesn't get allot of play around guys who have seen their fair share of reality. And attempting to argue based off a notion of morale and cultural relativism doesn't play well with people who have seen tyranny and its consequences.
jamber, thanks for responding. Like others have pointed out, however, your stated reasons for supporting Obama lack some depth. Since USANick has started with a focus on economic policies, I suggest we continue the discussion there, if you're willing.
First, so everyone has an equal baseline understanding of Obama's economic policies, the link to his stance on this issue from his official website is here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/).
At the top of the page, BHO is quoted as saying, "“I believe that America's free market has...provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…". My first question is how is innovation and unproven technology or methodologies most often funded? The largest source is venture capitalists from the free market, followed by loans and then government funding. The primary motivation behind venture capitalization is profit. However, the first point of the BHO/Biden plan is to enact a Windfall Profits Tax, whose very purpose is to punish financial success by taking a large percentage of profit and handing it out to the masses with no conditions or requirements. It doesn't take too much of that to discourage the domestic investment required to fund innovation and risk-taking.
The second gaping hole in BHO's economic plan involves the funding source of his planned spending. Assuming that Congress follows his direction lock, stock and barrel (ignoring constituent desires), let's look at BHO's announced spending:
$1 billion a year in energy rebates/tax relief
$50 billion to "jumpstart" the economy
Unidentified amount (easily hundreds of millions) for an "Advanced Manufacturing Fund"
Unidentified amount (again, easily hundreds of millions) to fund a Manufacturing Extension Partnership
$150 billion for clean energy
$60 billion for a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank
Unidentified amount to fund job training in "clean" technologies
Extention of broadband connectivity to every community in the country (funded through the USF charge on all phone bills)
$250 million per year for a National Network of Public-Private Business Incubators
Untold billions for a Universal Mortgage Credit
The creation of another bureaucracy - the Credit Card Rating System
Unidentified amount for nationwide 21st Century Learning Centers
50% credit to "low income" families for child care expenses
$1.5 billion to encourage paid-leave policies
At the same time, BHO wants to get Congress to enact the following tax cuts (which reduce available funding sources):
Eliminate income tax for 37 million citizens (over 3% of the population)
Tax breaks to companies that do not offshore work, regardless of the economic efficiency of doing so
A non-specific R&D tax credit
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses (the most prolific source of employment in the US)
Increase the Earned Income Tax Credit
Provide a $7000 tax credit for buying hybrid cars
So we're left with greater spending, much of it on wealth redistribution programs and business plans that discourage investing in innovation, and deeper cuts in the majority of the tax base, which serves as the funding source for all the aforementioned programs. I suppose this assumes that the "rich" (between 1 and 3% of the population) will fund all of this through higher taxes in order to benefit the remaining 97 - 99%? That doesn't sound like free market economics to me.
Lastly (for now), BHO appears to favor creating domestic trade restrictions to reduce foreign competition while concurrently eliminating foreign trade protection policies (that should play out well), forcing companies into inefficient resource allocation to protect expensive American labor, supporting labor unions over consumers, and forcing companies to provide compensation to workers that are not working (more paid leave, more FMLA). These initiatives display a gross lack of understanding of even the most basic free market concepts. Is this the person that should be at the helm of the largest economy in the world?
Jamber
Thump - Thump - Thump
Hey, Jamber - you out there?
How is the homework coming?
ZonieDiver
09-19-2008, 09:19
Jamber
Thump - Thump - Thump
Hey, Jamber - you out there?
How is the homework coming?
I've got to give Jamber "props"! He is young, and wrong about a lot of things - in my humble opinion - but (until now) he has hung in here and respectfully tried to make his points against a lot of opposition.
The Reaper
09-19-2008, 09:44
I've got to give Jamber "props"! He is young, and wrong about a lot of things - in my humble opinion - but (until now) he has hung in here and respectfully tried to make his points against a lot of opposition.
I agree. There is no need for dogpiling someone who is trying to debate the issues, even though they might be poorly informed.
Probably best to let him respond to the issues one at the time.
TR
It is reported in some places that the Dec 13, 1999 issue of the Chicago Defender had a story about Sen. Obama (D-13) and his backing of a bill that included among other things:
1) Making a felon of a person if a gun was stolen from their home if it was not properly secured and it was used in a crime after the theft.
2) Limiting weapons sales to one a month.
3) No guns show sales except "antiques".
4) A gun safety class that must be passed to purchase weapons.
Would a moderate who wants to feel good about "just a few more laws" think most of those are reasonable? No problems with any of them? Pass those and what would the next "few laws" be.
Me? I see a number of problems with each one.
Of course it could be that the Chicago Defender is just a right wing NRA huggin' rag out to distort Obama's position on the issue.
Defender968
09-20-2008, 12:23
It is reported in some places that the Dec 13, 1999 issue of the Chicago Defender had a story about Sen. Obama (D-13) and his backing of a bill that included among other things:
1) Making a felon of a person if a gun was stolen from their home if it was not properly secured and it was used in a crime after the theft.
2) Limiting weapons sales to one a month.
3) No guns show sales except "antiques".
4) A gun safety class that must be passed to purchase weapons.
Would a moderate who wants to feel good about "just a few more laws" think most of those are reasonable? No problems with any of them? Pass those and what would the next "few laws" be.
Me? I see a number of problems with each one.
Of course it could be that the Chicago Defender is just a right wing NRA huggin' rag out to distort Obama's position on the issue.
Pete I find it hard to believe anything coming out of Chicago is anywhere near the right, or even the center for that matter. I find many, many issues with this bill as well. The fact that BHO supported it does not surprise me, however it is a great example of why I don't trust is judgment, value system, or instincts and why there isn't a chance I will vote for him.
jamber97
09-21-2008, 16:31
Jamber
Thump - Thump - Thump
Hey, Jamber - you out there?
How is the homework coming?
I had one of those classic moments where I realized I didn't know quite as much about a subject as I thought. I'm still doing quite a bit of reading.
The Reaper
09-21-2008, 17:04
I had one of those classic moments where I realized I didn't know quite as much about a subject as I thought. I'm still doing quite a bit of reading.
Nothing wrong with that.
Most successful people recognize that more and more quickly as they get older.
I remember when my Dad suddenly got a lot smarter.:D
TR
I had one of those classic moments where I realized I didn't know quite as much about a subject as I thought. I'm still doing quite a bit of reading.
It takes a good amount of character to admit that--good job!
I had one of those classic moments where I realized I didn't know quite as much about a subject as I thought. I'm still doing quite a bit of reading.
Hey, don't feel bad....happens to me all the time! (know any good books on dealing with wives?):D
Hey, don't feel bad....happens to me all the time! (know any good books on dealing with wives?):D
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus????:p
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus????:p
That's an excellent book...to use as a fire starter.
ZonieDiver
09-23-2008, 08:09
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus????:p
If you look up "wussy" in the dictionary, you see the picture of theauthor of that book next to the definition!
http://www.isra.org/
I would think that the members of ISRA have a good idea of just who Obama really is.
Jamber, is there an issue other than economics you'd rather discuss?
USANick7
09-25-2008, 09:54
Jamber, is there an issue other than economics you'd rather discuss?
Please say defense policy!
Federalism would be another good one!
jamber97
09-25-2008, 10:21
Jamber, is there an issue rather than economics you'd rather discuss?
Please say defense policy!
Federalism would be another good one!
Abortion?
If a baby can survive outside its mother it should have rights. Before that point it should be left up to the mother.
I feel that Biden articulated my stance on abortion well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc3_mATe3uY
USANick7
09-25-2008, 10:39
Abortion?
If a baby can survive outside its mother it should have rights. Before that point it should be left up to the mother.
I feel that Biden articulated my stance on abortion well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc3_mATe3uY
Brother...I wasnt even going to hope for this one....
here we go...
USANick7
09-25-2008, 10:55
Abortion should be a question of when life begins. If it is anything else, then we are arguing about whether life has intrinsic value or not. We can argue that if you wish, but I am assuming that you do believe that human life does have intrinsic value, since unlike your presidential candidate, you don't seem to support infanticide.
So let us go back to our original question...when does life begin?
Science has determined that if something is growing it is therefore living. Now this may seem like an overly simplistic definition, but when you think about it, it makes sense. Now there are scientists who believe that in order to make the cut the criteria should be more strenuous, but what is interesting is that even with a more selective criteria, the human fetus at the point of conception meets these requirements.
the next question would be, what defines "human life". We define the species according to DNA. At the point of conception you possess all of the DNA from an outside source that you ever will.
So therefore, without pulling on one morale argument we have established quite adequately that at the point of conception, what we have is "Human Life".
Do we really need to debate the one remaining question...the question of innocence, or are you willing to concede that an infant is not guilty of a crime?
If so, then we have only one thing left to do...accurately describe the policy you support...
"Abortion is the systematic destruction of defenseless, innocent human life"
If you do not accept this definition, I am willing to hear your counter argument.
if you do accept it, and are comfortable with continuing to support it, then we must now argue concerning the belief in the intrinsic value of human life.
What shall it be.
I wouldn’t weigh in on this thread because you gents are often over this former grunt's head most of the time……except to note that the class demonstrated in this thread is much more impressive than some of the comments made in the college football thread.
USANick7
09-25-2008, 11:01
I wouldn’t weigh in on this thread because you gents are often over this former grunt's head most of the time……except to note that the class demonstrated in this thread is much more impressive than some of the comments made in the college football thread.
LOL
Well that because they are dealing with some serious stuff!
The Reaper
09-25-2008, 11:21
Abortion?
If a baby can survive outside its mother it should have rights. Before that point it should be left up to the mother.
I feel that Biden articulated my stance on abortion well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc3_mATe3uY
How many parents does it take to make a baby, jamber97?
If the father does not want the baby, can he kill it with impunity whenever he wishes?
What if he wants the child, and the mother does not? Should she be able to kill his child?
TR
USANick7
09-25-2008, 11:47
Damn, I was hoping he would answer my question before leaving!
ZonieDiver
09-25-2008, 11:52
Abortion?
If a baby can survive outside its mother it should have rights. Before that point it should be left up to the mother.
I feel that Biden articulated my stance on abortion well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc3_mATe3uY
Jamber,
When I was close to your age, I held a similar position. One day, while doing maintenance in the Mortar Platoon Gun Room, one of my specialists (whose wife was pregnant) brought in a commercially-sold "coffee talble" book with pictures taken from within the womb as the fetus developed - at all stages. I was mystified, amazed, and mortified at the position I had previously held. Ashamed.
When my wife became pregnant on two occasions and I could see, hear, and feel life develop inside her, as well as witness the birth of my two daughters, I was forever changed. I know when they were conceived and saw them both born. At some point between those two events they became life. I am not about to "guess" when - or let someone else guess. It is life, plain and simple.
Also, by your argument, no babies should have "rights" because human infants cannot survive long "outside their mother" - whether "healthy and full-term" or not!
jamber97
09-25-2008, 13:40
Abortion should be a question of when life begins. If it is anything else, then we are arguing about whether life has intrinsic value or not. We can argue that if you wish, but I am assuming that you do believe that human life does have intrinsic value, since unlike your presidential candidate, you don't seem to support infanticide.
So let us go back to our original question...when does life begin?
Science has determined that if something is growing it is therefore living. Now this may seem like an overly simplistic definition, but when you think about it, it makes sense. Now there are scientists who believe that in order to make the cut the criteria should be more strenuous, but what is interesting is that even with a more selective criteria, the human fetus at the point of conception meets these requirements.
the next question would be, what defines "human life". We define the species according to DNA. At the point of conception you possess all of the DNA from an outside source that you ever will.
So therefore, without pulling on one morale argument we have established quite adequately that at the point of conception, what we have is "Human Life".
Do we really need to debate the one remaining question...the question of innocence, or are you willing to concede that an infant is not guilty of a crime?
If so, then we have only one thing left to do...accurately describe the policy you support...
"Abortion is the systematic destruction of defenseless, innocent human life"
If you do not accept this definition, I am willing to hear your counter argument.
if you do accept it, and are comfortable with continuing to support it, then we must now argue concerning the belief in the intrinsic value of human life.
What shall it be.
Thats a very good argument.
"Determining when life begins is way above my pay grade " I sidestep that argument and focus on the rights of the mother to determine if she feels her unborn mass should live or die. I don't feel that all life has an intrinsic value that trumps all. Most arguments tend to come from a religious point of view. If you approach it from a religious point of view it pretty clear cut.
jamber97
09-25-2008, 13:45
Jamber,
Also, by your argument, no babies should have "rights" because human infants cannot survive long "outside their mother" - whether "healthy and full-term" or not!
I think you misunderstood my point. If you can make it survive outside the mother it has a right to life aside from the mothers wishes. As of now that would be 21 weeks 6 days. Until then its the mothers choice.
USANick7
09-25-2008, 13:50
Thats a very good argument.
"Determining when life begins is way above my pay grade " I sidestep that argument and focus on the rights of the mother to determine if she feels her unborn mass should live or die. I don't feel that all life has an intrinsic value that trumps all. Most arguments tend to come from a religious point of view. If you approach it from a religious point of view it pretty clear cut.
I haven't approached it form the "religious" point of view...
If life does not have intrinsic value, then why not kill it after the womb as well? In fact, what is the fundamental (not practical) difference between what you believe and what Hitler believed.
Neither of you believed that Human Life has intrinsic value, your simply haggaling over details. If innocent human life is not intrinsically valuable at its beginning, than what makes it valuable later?
If you aren't going to accept the scientific definitions of "human life" I have presented than present an opposing argument, but insisting on calling it a "unborn mass" without an explanation is a cheap and intellectually dishonest trick, which I think you know wont fly around here.
jamber97
09-25-2008, 13:57
I haven't approached it form the "religious" point of view...
If life does not have intrinsic value, then why not kill it after the womb as well? In fact, what is the fundamental (not practical) difference between what you believe and what Hitler believed.
Neither of you believed that Human Life has intrinsic value, your simply haggaling over details. If innocent human life is not intrinsically valuable at its beginning, than what makes it valuable later?
If you aren't going to accept the scientific definitions of "human life" I have presented than present an opposing argument, but insisting on calling it a "unborn mass" without an explanation is a cheap and intellectually dishonest trick, which I think you know wont fly around here.
No, my point is that "I don't feel that all life has an intrinsic value that trumps all”, I'm not saying that life has no intrinsic value. We exercise this principal in everyday life.
jamber97
09-25-2008, 13:59
I
If you aren't going to accept the scientific definitions of "human life" I have presented than present an opposing argument, but insisting on calling it a "unborn mass" without an explanation is a cheap and intellectually dishonest trick, which I think you know wont fly around here.
I accept your definition.
USANick7
09-25-2008, 14:41
I accept your definition.
So you are claiming that while life does have intrinsic value, this fact does not "trump all".
If an innocent persons right to live, doesn't supersede all other rights, don't you run into a very obvious problem?
If my right to live does not trump another persons right to kill me, don't we run into some very serious problems?
The Reaper
09-25-2008, 14:46
if she feels her unborn mass should live or die. I don't feel that all life has an intrinsic value that trumps all.
I find this statement and the definition of an unborn child offensive and dehumanizing.
I am sure that the Nazi concentration camp guards felt similarly about their prisoners.
Congratulations.
TR
USANick7
09-25-2008, 14:50
I find this statement and the definition of an unborn child offensive and dehumanizing.
I am sure that the Nazi concentration camp guards felt similarly about their prisoners.
Congratulations.
TR
I agree, but Jamber has recanted, and accepted the definition I presented.
During the 1830s, Southern slaveholders developed a multi-faceted defense of slavery on the basis of notions of white supremacy. A political component of their belief system was the view that slaves were property. Slaveholders argued that they had the right to determine what happened to their property. Slaveholders also argued that science 'proved' that Africans were not quite human and therefore not entitled to the natural rights of people of European descent.
In my view, those who favor a woman's right to slaughter her unborn child frequently offer arguments that are disturbingly similar to these two components of one of the most self destructive ideologies Western civilization has ever produced. (Here, I am agreeing with John Dower (http://www.amazon.com/War-Without-Mercy-Power-Pacific/dp/0394751728/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222378232&sr=8-1) and others who argue that notions of racial superiority are a double-edged knife that cuts deeply the wielding hand.)
I believe that arguing that the body is property is ultimately an act of self-annihilation. If feminist history teaches us anything, it shows that some men have dominated some women by defining women as property. In my view, turning that argument on its head and saying women own themselves is not an intellectually sustainable position because property can be bought, sold, and stolen. To put it bluntly: if a woman can argue that she owns her body, a pimp can argue that she's his piece of ass. (As evidence, I would refer an interested party here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/slaves/)).
In my view, arguing that science proves the validity of a political and cultural argument is perilous. The only sure lesson of scientific inquiry is that what we know is but a shadow of what we don't know. What will we say as a society if science eventually proves what many (including myself) believe: that human beings are invested with an immortal soul and that soul takes shape at the moment of conception?
jamber97
09-25-2008, 15:43
So you are claiming that while life does have intrinsic value, this fact does not "trump all".
Correct
If an innocent persons right to live, doesn't supersede all other rights, don't you run into a very obvious problem?
Not at all. A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its mother. The only rational action it must take is nothing, it just waits for itself to develop using the nurishment provided by its mother.
If my right to live does not trump another persons right to kill me, don't we run into some very serious problems?
You're a human being. A fetus is not a human being unless it can be supported outside its mother. Its a potential human being.
Jamber,
Have you ever read a legal definition of homicide? It is my understanding that, for example, California Penal Code Section 187 defines homicide as "the. unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice, aforethought." Does not this language establish that, at least in California, an unborn child does have at least one right: the right not to be killed unlawfully? (If I misunderstand the language here, I hope that a member of the bar will correct me.)
Also, by your logic, babies born prematurely or with special needs who could not survive without medical intervention could be subject to termination.
Correct
Not at all. A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its mother. The only rational action it must take is nothing, it just waits for itself to develop using the nurishment provided by its mother.
You're a human being. A fetus is not a human being unless it can be supported outside its mother. Its a potential human being.
jamber97
09-25-2008, 15:59
Jamber,
Have you ever read a legal definition of homicide? It is my understanding that, for example, California Penal Code Section 187 defines homicide as "the. unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice, aforethought." Does not this language establish that, at least in California, an unborn child does have at least one right: the right not to be killed unlawfully? (If I misunderstand the language here, I hope that a member of the bar will correct me.)
Also, by your logic, babies born prematurely or with special needs who could not survive without medical intervention could be subject to termination.
We end up right back where we started. A womens right to choose. It's not unlawful to kill a fetus if the mother chooses to. It is unlawful to kill a fetus with out the mothers consent ie. malice. This statute adresses the right of the mother not the fetus. The fetus has no rights.
jamber97
09-25-2008, 16:11
In my view, arguing that science proves the validity of a political and cultural argument is perilous. The only sure lesson of scientific inquiry is that what we know is but a shadow of what we don't know. What will we say as a society if science eventually proves what many (including myself) believe: that human beings are invested with an immortal soul and that soul takes shape at the moment of conception?
We end up backing into the religious side of the debate. This isn't something that should be forced on the masses that may not follow your religious beliefs. No ones saying that you don't have a right to follow this view in your own life but making others take the same approach goes against the intentions of a free society.
A fetus has no right to be in a womens body against her will.
Constant
09-25-2008, 16:21
A fetus has no right to be in a womens body against her will.
But what if the woman wanted to open her legs? She opted to have sex and became pregnant because of it. Detroy an unborn child because of the mother's or father's lack of self-control? Even with protection, risks exist and that risk is having a child; the "adults" in this case, should they accept the risk of having sex (risk = having a child), also should accept the child. But I like personal responsibility.
jamber97
09-25-2008, 16:26
But what if the women wanted to open her legs?:o
That wouldn't be a justification to force her to carry the fetus since its a matter of rights and not that of sexual history.
Correct
Not at all. A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its mother. The only rational action it must take is nothing, it just waits for itself to develop using the nurishment provided by its mother.
You're a human being. A fetus is not a human being unless it can be supported outside its mother. Its a potential human being.
So if we follow your logic then a child truly has no rights then either, because it can not survive on its own, it needs the support of another human being to keep it alive as it cannot find its own food, feed itself, etc...
Additionally, your other comment about a fetus not having the right to be in the mother's body, that wins the boobie prize for the day in my opinion. I would say 99.9% of the time that fetus is there because the mother chose not to practice safe sex, therefore is accountable for that fetus being there in the first place. Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex or practice safe sex.
I am not a proponent of abortion, but I do believe if a woman/girl has been raped they should have the right to choose. If the life of the mother is at risk I believe they have the right to chose as well. My personal opinion is I wouldn't have an abortion in any case, but I can't make that decision for another woman in a situation such as these. Other than that, if you practice safe sex or don't have it at all, then there shouldn't be a problem.
Unfortunately this world has become so narcissistic that the only thing that matters any more is ME!!!!
jamber97
09-25-2008, 16:42
So if we follow your logic then a child truly has no rights then either, because it can not survive on its own, it needs the support of another human being to keep it alive as it cannot find its own food, feed itself, etc...
Additionally, your other comment about a fetus not having the right to be in the mother's body, that wins the boobie prize for the day in my opinion. I would say 99.9% of the time that fetus is there because the mother chose not to practice safe sex, therefore is accountable for that fetus being there in the first place. Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex or practice safe sex.
I am not a proponent of abortion, but I do believe if a woman/girl has been raped they should have the right to choose. If the life of the mother is at risk I believe they have the right to chose as well. My personal opinion is I wouldn't have an abortion in any case, but I can't make that decision for another woman in a situation such as these. Other than that, if you practice safe sex or don't have it at all, then there shouldn't be a problem.
Unfortunately this world has become so narcissistic that the only thing that matters any more is ME!!!!
Following my logic a child would be a human being and therefore have rights.The issue of whether the women chose to have sex, or not, is irrelevant since the essential issue is not a matter of sexual history, but a matter of rights.
So following your line of reason a condom determines a womens right to abort or not abort?
...... A fetus is not a human being unless it can be supported outside its mother. Its a potential human being.
Jamber;
You have just agreed with the majority of posters here. At least in that 3rd trimester abortions should be restricted. Since it is not uncommon for 6 month old babies to be viable in these days.
The agrument will now have to move into the 2nd trimester.
Pete
jamber97
09-25-2008, 16:55
For the record, I'm not a proponent of abortion either. I am a proponent of human rights and effective abortion prevention through education.
Following my logic a child would be a human being and therefore have rights.The issue of whether the women chose to have sex, or not, is irrelevant since the essential issue is not a matter of sexual history, but a matter of rights.
So following your line of reason a condom determines a womens right to abort or not abort?
If you chose to have sex and become pregnant, whose fault is it, the tooth fairy's??? If you have fear of a condom breaking, or the birth control pill not working, or any other plethora of reasons I am sure you will throw back at me, then don't have sex.
Here is a story for you. When I was a 1st Lt, I was single, on birth control, and got pregnant. Now I had my sq/cc as well as my 1st Sgt and a bunch of other senior ranking officers tell me that it would be best for career if I had an abortion because being a single parent took a lot of effort, and would be distracting to my career. Sounds difficult to believe, but it is true.
My take was, I was the one who made the mistake, not the child I was carrying. So why should it have to pay for my mistakes? Had I a been a little more selfish, maybe that would have been the road I took. But my parents taught me to own up to my mistakes, and learn from them. So I was a single parent for 5 years, and guess what, it didn't effect my career in the least. Now my daughter is 11 years old and has been the light of my life from the moment I found out I was pregnant.
I am tired of people saying they have the "right" to have sexual intercourse, but the child created doesn't have the right to live. I have the "right" to bash my husband over the head if he pisses me off, but there are also consequences to be paid for said action.
Do you know how many families there are in this country seeking to adopt a child? If you don't want the child, fine put it up for adoption. There is no excuse for the killing of an innocent life because it is an inconvenience, or the timing isn't right, or I am just not ready to be a parent. Goes back to my narcissism idea.
I think that in your haste you are misreading or reading selectively the posts of people who disagree with your position.
We are not 'backing into' anything. I am suggesting a scenario in which science confirms a matter of faith and that matter of faith then becomes a matter of scientific 'fact.'
Granted, this scenario suggests a paradigm shift of Copernican dimensions and is therefore, according to the late Thomas Kuhn, unlikely, but science does have a tricky way of making the improbable common place.
Considering the fact that Americans are historically a very religious group overall, why should values derived from religious sensibilities not play a pivotal role in the formulation of public policy.
(In anticipation of the separation of the church and state argument, I would ask: are you sure that the separation of church and state exists for the protection of the state and not for the protection of religious freedom?)
We end up backing into the religious side of the debate. This isn't something that should be forced on the masses that may not follow your religious beliefs. No ones saying that you don't have a right to follow this view in your own life but making others take the same approach goes against the intentions of a free society.
A fetus has no right to be in a womens body against her will.
Jamber,
Your Signature brought me to the conclusion that you were a woman. You don't need to say yea or nay in the public forum, just my own belief.
I have read each and every word you have written in this thread, and in my own analysis, your words speak to the idiocy that makes up a liberal woman in todays soceity.
You dance around, cloak, and toy with the male gender of conservatives on this site, by ocilating between being for abortion, but against it in "relative" terms. (You know what I mean.)
You are the type of woman that attempts to paint, with broad strokes, your opponent...only to play the "emotional" card when it suites.
Disgusting, IMHO.
Holly
The last couple of pages are getting a little heated.
Make your points but remain civil.
jamber97
09-25-2008, 17:42
Jamber,
Your Signature brought me to the conclusion that you were a woman. You don't need to say yea or nay in the public forum, just my own belief.
I have read each and every word you have written in this thread, and in my own analysis, your words speak to the idiocy that makes up a liberal woman in todays soceity.
You dance around, cloak, and toy with the male gender of conservatives on this site, by ocilating between being for abortion, but against it in "relative" terms. (You know what I mean.)
You are the type of woman that attempts to paint, with broad strokes, your opponent...only to play the "emotional" card when it suites.
Disgusting, IMHO.
Holly
No, I'm not a woman but I appreciate the compliment. I've been married for 12 years and have two children 3 and 5 years old. My wife doesn't share my views. I'm far from being a liberal or interested in accepting any label you might try to attach. I have strong convictions that I wouldn't dream of forcing on the masses. I believe in a persons right to make their own choices free from force as long as that persons rights do not encroach on the rights of others.
jamber97
09-25-2008, 17:49
If you chose to have sex and become pregnant, whose fault is it, the tooth fairy's??? If you have fear of a condom breaking, or the birth control pill not working, or any other plethora of reasons I am sure you will throw back at me, then don't have sex.
Here is a story for you. When I was a 1st Lt, I was single, on birth control, and got pregnant. Now I had my sq/cc as well as my 1st Sgt and a bunch of other senior ranking officers tell me that it would be best for career if I had an abortion because being a single parent took a lot of effort, and would be distracting to my career. Sounds difficult to believe, but it is true.
My take was, I was the one who made the mistake, not the child I was carrying. So why should it have to pay for my mistakes? Had I a been a little more selfish, maybe that would have been the road I took. But my parents taught me to own up to my mistakes, and learn from them. So I was a single parent for 5 years, and guess what, it didn't effect my career in the least. Now my daughter is 11 years old and has been the light of my life from the moment I found out I was pregnant.
I am tired of people saying they have the "right" to have sexual intercourse, but the child created doesn't have the right to live. I have the "right" to bash my husband over the head if he pisses me off, but there are also consequences to be paid for said action.
Do you know how many families there are in this country seeking to adopt a child? If you don't want the child, fine put it up for adoption. There is no excuse for the killing of an innocent life because it is an inconvenience, or the timing isn't right, or I am just not ready to be a parent. Goes back to my narcissism idea.
I support your right to make that decision regardless of your reason.
jamber97
09-25-2008, 17:59
I think that in your haste you are misreading or reading selectively the posts of people who disagree with your position.
We are not 'backing into' anything. I am suggesting a scenario in which science confirms a matter of faith and that matter of faith then becomes a matter of scientific 'fact.'
Granted, this scenario suggests a paradigm shift of Copernican dimensions and is therefore, according to the late Thomas Kuhn, unlikely, but science does have a tricky way of making the improbable common place.
Considering the fact that Americans are historically a very religious group overall, why should values derived from religious sensibilities not play a pivotal role in the formulation of public policy.
(In anticipation of the separation of the church and state argument, I would ask: are you sure that the separation of church and state exists for the protection of the state and not for the protection of religious freedom?)
That scientific Copernican argument is over my head. I'll need to do a little research on that.
Values derived from religious sensibilities should not play a role in the formulation of public policy because religion is subjective. Many "sensibilities" existed long before organized religion came on the scene.
To answer your last point: Separation of church and state exists for the protection of the state and religious freedom.
jamber97
09-25-2008, 18:08
Jamber;
You have just agreed with the majority of posters here. At least in that 3rd trimester abortions should be restricted. Since it is not uncommon for 6 month old babies to be viable in these days.
The agrument will now have to move into the 2nd trimester.
Pete
As medical advances improve it modifies my stance on when its a womans' right to abort. Before the fetus is 21 weeks six days.
The last couple of pages are getting a little heated.
Make your points but remain civil.
Pete Sir,
My appologies if my posts have not been up to PS.com standards.
Will attempt to do better in the future.
Now, I am out to do PT!:lifter
Holly
GratefulCitizen
09-25-2008, 22:41
To answer your last point: Separation of church and state exists for the protection of the state and religious freedom.
Where exactly in the Constitution is the separation of church and state commanded?
<edit>
Regarding the right to choose/right to life issue, consider this quote from the father of our nation:
"It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn."
(emphasis mine)
Where exactly in the Constitution is the separation of church and state commanded?
Federalist Papers. Commanded? It is pretty much an unprecedented requirement. If loosing the bonds of Religion from Politics bothers you, I have no idea where you believe it goes from there. It cannot end well if Politics and Religion mix - like ultra-Conservatives wont to do.
If you're trying to make a point, all good. If you don't know the answer to your own question - wow.
Not good.
but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn."
(emphasis mine)
Of course the emphasis was yours. It is a ridiculous reach that makes no sense.
Abortion was on the table back then so he wanted us to "BE AWARE" of the coming devil? LOL. Are you kidding me?
Seriously, you ultra-conservative Republicans are making it very difficult for mainstream-Republicans like me to defend ourselves.
Can we label you something else?
Way out of touch, maybe?
GratefulCitizen
09-25-2008, 23:09
Federalist Papers. Commanded? It is pretty much an unprecedented requirement. If loosing the bonds of Religion from Politics bothers you, I have no idea where you believe it goes from there. It cannot end well if Politics and Religion mix - like ultra-Conservatives wont to do.
If you're trying to make a point, all good. If you don't know the answer to your own question - wow.
Not good.
In which article of the Constitution do you find the Federalist Papers?
Was the person to whom the "separation of church and state" quote attributed even a signer of the Consitution?
GratefulCitizen
09-25-2008, 23:57
Of course the emphasis was yours. It is a ridiculous reach that makes no sense.
Ad Absurdum
Noting that the emphasis was mine is merely a style formality when quoting.
Mocking it does not make an effective argument.
Abortion was on the table back then so he wanted us to "BE AWARE" of the coming devil? LOL. Are you kidding me?
Ignoratio Elenchi
In the context of the thread, the quote addresses the inherent narcissism present in typical pro-abortion arguments.
Presenting and knocking down an irrelevent straw man argument misses the point.
Seriously, you ultra-conservative Republicans are making it very difficult for mainstream-Republicans like me to defend ourselves.
Can we label you something else?
Way out of touch, maybe?
Ad Hominem
There are a great many flaws in me.
However, I am not the issue.
**********
**********
In my post responding to Jamber's "separation of church and state" comment, I was attempting to point out that the issues surrounding this quote are much more complex than the oft-quoted 5 words.
"Separation of church and state" is a favored tool among those not willing to look more deeply.
Most of the time, it is used as a secundum quid et simpliciter argument.
FWIW, I am well aware of the origin of "separation of church and state", the historical context in which it was written, and, if one were to accept the contemporary interpretation, the implication of severe cognitive dissonance which would have to be attributed to the author, considering the first sentence of his most famous document.
Dozer523
09-26-2008, 00:05
never mind . . . too weird for me
USANick7
09-26-2008, 03:05
Correct
Not at all. A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its mother. The only rational action it must take is nothing, it just waits for itself to develop using the nurishment provided by its mother.
You're a human being. A fetus is not a human being unless it can be supported outside its mother. Its a potential human being.
Here is the problem Jamber, we are right back to "definitions of Human life".
You claimed that you accepted my definition, now you appear to be contradicting yourself.
If you do except my definition, then this response makes no sense.
You make several assertions in here which are based merely on your opinion rather than verifiable scientific evidence.
Let us return once more to the definition of human life and go from there...otherwise you will force me to return to my obvious response, that if Human life does not have intrinsic value at the point of conception, why do YOU get to choose when it starts having "rights"...
I can see that we are also going to trail into the notion of relativism vs. objectivism...that will come up, but first we must be settled on this point..
Human Life begins at conception. (You agreed with this statement)
If human life begins at conception, then what prey tell gives you the right to snuff it out?
Apparently it is a question of development....
So again, we have established what you believe: (It is acceptable to destroy human life at its most innocent and defenseless stage)
We are merely arguing over details.
You wish to say that attaining an ability to "reason" is the criteria by which we should decide. And if Hitler should disagree, you appear to have no morale response....you just simply agree to disagree.
Now I'm sorry to keep bringing up Hitler, but it is necessary to demonstrate the fundamental problems with allowing abortion to continue as is. Your argument suggests a lack of understanding of what "intrinsic" means as it is applied to Human Life.
You also appear to be oblivious to the obvious flaw in your reasoning. You claim to be all for individual liberty (strange since you support greater government involvement in the economic sector), yet deny the very first right we have, the right to LIVE. The most fundamental of all rights.
This right you claim is subordinate to YOUR opinion that life only has value when YOU determine it does. I find that disturbing. because if life only has value when you determine, instead of when it begins, than who are you to tell someone else they are wrong when they determine that innocent human life can be destroyed a month after birth (Yale ethicist Peter Singer).
Furthermore, you suggest that there is some difference between a religious response to abortion and a "rational" one. But you partially defeat this argument when you claim that life has intrinsic value. If life has intrinsic value, then you are arguing from a Theistic viewpoint, for how can something possess value intrinsically in a closed system, devoid of absolute truth or morale law.
Don't get me wrong, I think you are correct in approaching it from a "Theistic" viewpoint.
BMT (RIP)
09-26-2008, 04:43
I don't think ANYONE on this thread has ever been confronted with this situation.
Our first child was born with a birth defect. We were able to love and enjoy her for a short 16 month's.
During most of this time I was in SFTG. My COC went the extra mile to give what ever support I needed. I probably had more 3 day passes that started on Wednesday than anyone in the Army.
I was at Ft Holabird when I got the call to come home.
When I went back to the 'Bird to finish my instructorr's couldn't believe how my grade were so high with this hangin' above my head.
BMT
I do not see the profit that posts such as these offer to discussions of serious subjects, especially when its participants are making an honest effort to understand differing viewpoints with which they may disagree.
The practice of placing labels on others' beliefs and then dismissing them comes at the expense of understanding others in their own terms.
Federalist Papers. Commanded? It is pretty much an unprecedented requirement. If loosing the bonds of Religion from Politics bothers you, I have no idea where you believe it goes from there. It cannot end well if Politics and Religion mix - like ultra-Conservatives wont to do.
If you're trying to make a point, all good. If you don't know the answer to your own question - wow.
Not good.
Of course the emphasis was yours. It is a ridiculous reach that makes no sense.
Abortion was on the table back then so he wanted us to "BE AWARE" of the coming devil? LOL. Are you kidding me?
Seriously, you ultra-conservative Republicans are making it very difficult for mainstream-Republicans like me to defend ourselves.
Can we label you something else?
Way out of touch, maybe?
ZonieDiver
09-26-2008, 08:34
Here is a story for you. When I was a 1st Lt, I was single, on birth control, and got pregnant. Now I had my sq/cc as well as my 1st Sgt and a bunch of other senior ranking officers tell me that it would be best for career if I had an abortion because being a single parent took a lot of effort, and would be distracting to my career. Sounds difficult to believe, but it is true.
My take was, I was the one who made the mistake, not the child I was carrying. So why should it have to pay for my mistakes? Had I a been a little more selfish, maybe that would have been the road I took. But my parents taught me to own up to my mistakes, and learn from them. So I was a single parent for 5 years, and guess what, it didn't effect my career in the least. Now my daughter is 11 years old and has been the light of my life from the moment I found out I was pregnant.
afchic,
I'm not sure how I missed your post. Thank you and God bless you for making that difficult decision those twelve years ago. It took courage, intelligence, and a knowledge of self to do that in the face of all the advice you were given.
The young people I work with almost invariably seek the easy way out. They don't even consider the difficult, though correct, decision. Because of this, they miss so much.
I am sure that every time you look at your daughter, you thank God you decided the way you did. Again, thanks for sharing that story.
Team Sergeant
09-26-2008, 09:11
This thread has gone too far sideways and some of you need a bit more education before you argue in public.
This thread is closed.
Team Sergeant