So What Shall We Talk About?

[pinkfloyd1973]

Mac sez: Bush Immoral? He is not the one wanting to leagalize homosexual marriages! That is immoral. Since Dems are so worried about people being killed but don't worry about giving an unborn child a chance at life and murder the poor little unborn baby. That is immoral. They say a woman has the right to do as she pleases with her body, but the baby growing inside of her is not her body it is her child and murder should never be allowed just because she did not keep her pants up. Talk about punishing someone for nothing they done. That is what is immoral.

 

 

 

See, this is where I think I am somewhat on the left too. I am OK with homosexuality, lesbianism and gay marriages because I believe in my heart of hearts that there is nothing wrong with it and they are not harming anyone. I believe that the people that are opposed to it don't understand it and don't want to, in other words they're close-minded.

 

Now on the topic of abortion, i'm also leaning to the left because it IS a woman's right to chose. Let me ask you this, in the case of rape, incest or a child being impregnated (i'm talking about 11, 12 and 13 and even 14 years of age). Should we make them go through with the pregnancy and the emotional trauma of childbirth? I've been through childbirth and it is no picnic (not that I wouldn't do it again, but with lots of painkillers LOL). You're talking about something that doesn't happen that much, a promiscuous woman gets pregnant and as a method of birth control, she aborts the embryo (they aren't fetuses until the second trimester, about 13 weeks of pregnancy, at which time abortion is not an option). I'm talking about other cases where the pregnancy is definitely not wanted, as in the examples I just stated. If you were a woman, you just might understand, we are not sluts that "can't keep our pants up", it takes two to make a baby and men should take responsibilty for their actions. I've seen enough shows about paternity tests where men are the promiscuous ones who promise the women moon and stars and then dumps them when they become pregnant. This isn't a said and done situation, there are more circumstances that what you said. :::END RANT:::

 

 

Robin

"Desert Moon"

[Oct31PM]

Wow! Mac, that was like a "Mac's Greatest Hits" post! You managed to bring up almost every argument I've ever heard you make in favor of Bush! Figuring out what to respond to and what to just let go as "we've been through this before" is going to take a bit of time - which I don't have at this moment.

 

I did want to let Robin know that I wrote a fairly involved response to your previous post last night, only to have my computer shut down right before I posted it! But your newer post definitely sheds some new light on your views. So, maybe you really haven't decided who to vote for yet. Cool.

 

Best wishes,

 

Alan

[Oct31PM]

O.K. I'm going to try another response to Robin's post.

 

Robin says: <I am not linking the two, they are two entirely different things, even Bush has said that Saddam did not have anything to do with 9/11 .

 

I am glad to hear that. This imaginary link is something that many have trouble letting go of so it makes discussion a lot easier.

 

As far as invading Iraq, we liberated that country from a sadistic dictator that murdered and even used WMD's against his own people, we're doing a favor for ths nut job by even keeping his sorry ass alive. We thought that he had WMD's (and we still don't know if he does or not) but it wasn't unnecessary or unwinnable by any means at all.

 

I don't know that the majority of Iraqis feel all that "liberated." Reports issued this week indicate that the country is in major danger of sliding into civil war. Many are still mourning the losses of family members killed either by our bombs or by the continuing fight with Iraqi insurgents. America and George Bush don't really have very high approval ratings in Iraq.

 

You may indeed have thought that Iraq had WMD's. I certainly never did nor did the millions of protesters who took to the streets all over the world to try to prevent this war from happening. Certainly former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter and a whole list of government experts didn't believe there were any WMD's although those who came out and said so were almost immediately attacked by the Bush Administration. The bottom line is that I'm pretty sure that most key members of the Bush Administration didn't really think that there were WMD's in Iraq either, but if that lack of WMD's had been proved by, oh, say the weapons inspectors that we had in Iraq for that VERY purpose, then Bush and his pals would have had no excuse for their war. So they had to rush in before the inspectors finished their job and PROVED that there were no weapons. Was this war unneccessary? Clearly.

 

As for whether or not this war is unwinnable, time will tell, but it sure isn't looking good right now.

 

Robin says: <Iraq was not and is STILL not a non-threatening nation, need I remind you they invaded Kuwait and threatened what peace there was in the Middle East 13 years ago. He was always a threat. I think Kerry's idea is to sit idly by while Iraq makes WMD's and kill more of it's own people and people in other nations. Everyone wants their loved ones home, I have a female cousin there, but when you sign up for the military, it is your duty to serve your country, and that is what they're doing.

 

True that Iraq WAS a threatening nation and that they invaded Kuwait. Then we attacked them, beat them, sanctioned them, and disarmed them. Was Saddam still a danger to the world? Perhaps if he was given the opportunity. But the key is that we had not given him the opportunity. The sanctions and the weapons inspections WORKED! Saddam did not have the means to be a serious threat anymore. And if we suspected otherwise, then we should have sent the inspectors back in. Oh yeah, we did that. Too bad they weren't allowed to actually do their job. That could have saved a whole lot of time, money, and wasted lives. Now, what makes you think Iraq is in a position to make more WMD's? They can barely tie their shoes right now. Or did you mean that Kerry WOULD HAVE liked to have sat by and not invaded Iraq? Well, he voted to give the President the clout neccessary to enable him to put weapons inspectors back into Iraq (which worked just fine) so I don't think he wanted to sit around and do nothing while Iraq made WMD's. He was interested in finding the truth and responding to it. Bush had no interest in the truth. His agenda was invasion, come hell or high water. In any case, it's as I said, if we suspected that Saddam WAS making weapons, the thing to do was check. You don't find your missing car keys by bulldozing the house.

 

My best wishes to your cousin for a speedy and safe return.

 

Robin says: <That is why we vote for President every four years, now that I know who you're voting for ( ) I am still undecided who i'm voting for, as seeing that Illinois is not allowing Nader on the ballot

 

Naturally, I'm hoping you'll decide to vote for Kerry, if indeed you really ARE undecided. In your other post, you spoke of support for gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. With all the silly hoopla about past war records and all the neccessary hoopla about the Iraq war, the crucial thing that most people are overlooking is that the next President will probably appoint three and possibly as many as four Supreme Court justices. If Bush is allowed to fill all of these seats with hardline conservatives, the toll to abortion rights, civil rights (including gay marriage), citizen's rights against corporations, citizen's rights to sue for malpractice, separation of church and state, our environment, and no doubt a hundred other issues I'm not thinking of at this moment, will be immense. And we're not just talking four years because these justices can't be voted out of office. They're there for life. Public policy across the board will take a hard swing to the right, in favor of corporations and the wealthy, and against the poor and middle class for the next forty years or so!

 

This is not a matter to be taken even remotely lightly. Vote wisely (which means for Kerry!) If for some reason, you won't vote for Kerry, then by all means, vote for Nader as a write-in!

 

Best wishes,

 

Alan

[Oct31PM]

O.K. Let's give this a shot.

 

Mac says:<If we never invaded Iraq, then right now the Kerry campaign would be all over Bush for not doing so.>

 

No. Because nobody besides Bush and the neo-cons in his administration (particularly the latter) were especially concerned about Iraq. We'd been attacked by Al Queda and Iraq was the most systematically disarmed nation on the face of the Earth. This was a "crisis" that Bush and Co. invented, pure and simple. Or, if Bush had let the weapons inspectors finish their job, we would have known conclusively that Saddam was still disarmed and been able to keep focus on more important matters.

 

Mac says: <That is why hearing John Kerry speak against the war and removing Saddam is so funny. FLIP FLOP!!!!!>

 

Yawn. Are the Republicans ever going to come up with a new catch phrase? This one's getting so old and has always been SO ironic coming from George "I'll Give You a Different Excuse Every Week For Why We Invaded Iraq" Bush.

 

Mac says:<That ballot had been used for many years it even elected Bill Clinton. >

 

That's an interesting assertion that I hadn't heard before. I'll have to check that out.

 

Mac says: <They talk about legitimate votes not getting counted, but never talk about how they wanted to block legitimate military votes. >

 

We did cover this but, again, votes that are not cast BY ELECTION DAY, are not valid. You can't go into the polls the day after the election and cast a vote. And neither can our armed forces. Was it the fault of the postal system that they were postmarked late? I honestly don't know but they were not "legitimate votes" as you say.

 

Mac says: <The Democratic party is slowly but surely losing their party. That party is shrinking. First you have a Democratic President turning the White House into the Motel 6, then a Democratic Presidential candidate that can't admit to defeat, so he tries to steal the election by pulling the race card and counting votes that are not even there. Then every scandal out there is always caused by a Democrat. Sex scandals,Tax scandals, not matter what kind of scandal 99.9% of the time it is a Democrat involved in a scandal. Now they have a flip flopping anit military candidate and that is not helping them none. >

 

This partisan tirade (which is so lacking in actual fact that I won't even address it) is pretty ironic coming from the guy who was just accusing me of being against the war only because it was a Republican who got us into it.

 

Mac says:<All Bush has done is talk about Kerry's Senate voting record that Kerry does not want to talk about. That is not bashing that is pointing out the facts.>

 

I see. But Kerry talking about Bush's Presidential record? That's bashing? Riiiiigggghhhttt.

 

Mac says:<Then look at what CBS and Dan Rather tried to do to Bush with forged documents. >

 

I'm SO glad you brought this up! I was listening to a couple of right wing radio stations yesterday and was practically shrieking with laughter as the commentators would angrily denounce Rather and demand his firing! Let's see now. He used forged documents without verifying their authenticity to go on television and make a case based on lies, right? Why does that sound SO familiar? Who's done something like that before? OH YEAH! Why it was President Bush! He got, not just on televsion, but in front of the Congress and the whole world and blatantly stated that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa, all based on - guess what? - Forged documents!!!!

 

So should Dan Rather be fired for using forged documents to make a partisan attack on the President? Well, SURE, as long as we fire Bush too for using forged documents to take our NATION INTO WAR!!!! Somehow I find the latter to be just a tad more serious.

 

Mac says: <They go as far to insult a sitting President and insult our military. >

 

This calls to mind that great John Stewart quip on the Daily Show after Zel Miller had blasted the Democrats for "trying to bring down the President!" Imitating Miller, Stewart cried, "How DARE they field a candidate?!!!! And in an election year!!!" LOL!

 

Mac says:<Alan now you say the men in the militarys courage has been misused. But I know you would not have the nerve to say that in the face of the men and women serving in Iraq.>

 

I absolutely would because I'm sure most of these brave soldiers understand perfectly well that they're fighting for my right to have that opinion.

 

Mac says:<There is that contradiciton again. Attacking people that are not attacking us? We stopped them before they could just like you say we should have done before 9-11 as if we knew that was gonna happen. >

 

O.K. How can I make clear to you what I'm saying? The reason you feel this is a contradiction would SEEM to be that you feel that the only way to try to prevent a terrorist act is by INVADING ANOTHER COUNTRY! There are less extreme measures that could be taken. If you get a memo from your security chief (as Bush did) saying that Osama Bin Laden is determined to strike within the United States, first you might start meeting regularly with that security chief to form a course of action (something Bush didn't do.) You might redouble your efforts to try to locate Osama Bin Laden (something Bush didn't do) and you might start doing everything you could to tighten security on areas where we are weak (airports, shipping yards, nuclear reactors, etc.) (something else Bush didn't do.)

 

Bush's pre-9/11 security seems to have mostly consisted of trying to think of ways to invade Iraq, despite the fact that he was being told that Osama Bin Laden was the biggest threat to America. The majority of his post-9/11 security efforts revolved around justifiying an invasion of Iraq, despite the fact that it was Osama Bin Laden who had, as predicted, attacked us.

 

Invading a country would generally be the least effective way to combat terrorism because of all the new terrorism you create by doing so. But I tend to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on Afghanistan because it at least made SOME sense. Unlike Iraq.

 

Mac says: <Dems want to hide behind the number of deaths in Iraq but never think about the thousands we saved by getting rid of Saddam. >

 

This actually raises an interesting point and it's one thing I never hear about from EITHER side. We hear a lot about Saddam's obviously wicked past but, in the few years leading up to invasion, let's say in the 21st Century, how many Iraqis WERE dying at Saddam's hands? Now Bush's invasion has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis so I'm genuinely curious to know how many would likely have died in these past 16 months or so if Saddam had stayed in power. If anyone knows where those sort of figures can be found, I'd be interested to know. Well, I did just find one report from last October that indicated that the Iraqi death toll had more than tripled since the invasion began. I'll try to look into it more.

 

Mac says: <Bush Immoral? He is not the one wanting to leagalize homosexual marriages! That is immoral. >

 

Ah, see, there we have to disagree. Some of us would put the bombing of innocent women and children a little higher on the immorality scale than two consenting, loving adults wanting to pledge their lives together in the bond of matrimony.

 

Mac says:<Since Dems are so worried about people being killed but don't worry about giving an unborn child a chance at life and murder the poor little unborn baby...Talk about punishing someone for nothing they done. That is what is immoral.>

 

Robin already responded very well to this so I'll leave it alone except to say, once again, that Republicans feel VERY strongly about killing an unborn child - unless, of course, it's an unborn child that you're dropping a bomb on. Nothing wrong with that!

 

Best wishes,

 

Alan

[Mac Knew]

Like I said this all about the party. Had Al Gore been the one to lead us into this war right now Alan and I would be in agreement instead of disagreement as far as the war goes.

 

About Homeosexual marriages? They are immoral,sick, and just plain wrong. God himself is the one who condems the homosexual lifestyle. It is god that homosexuals will have to and he already said they will go to hell. Since God said it I believe it.

 

The abortion thing. Everybody always wants to hide behind the rape thing! What about the ones who use it as birth control? Talk about closing your mind that is everybody is doing. A docotor takes the baby halfway out of the mothers womb and stabs it's head with scissors? Let me hold you down and stick scissors in your head. That is nothing but murder!!!!!!!!!! What about the abortion that sucks the baby to pieces? If you ever see that video of a baby being aborted then you will change your mind. No baby deserves this.

 

You all want to know why we went to Iraq? Because people like Kerry put alot of pressure on the President to do so. Like I said had he not invaded Iraq, then right the argument would be that he did not even attempt to remove Saddam, Saddam could have W.O.M.D, and so on. Last December John Kerry said Saddam needing to be overthrown and anybody that did not agree with that did not deserve to be elected President. Now he is saying had he been in office he would not have over thrown Saddam. FLIP FLOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is he gonna say tomorrow?

 

Kerry is bashing Bush. I would not be complaining as much if he would say how he can do better, but he don't all he does his bash Bush. That is it! The real funny part is how he vowed to leave the dirty negative politics in the past, and now look at him. FLIP FLOP!!!!!

 

I am afraid I don't have to worry. Kerry is a gonner.

 

 

Mac

[pinkfloyd1973]

Alan sez: Robin already responded very well to this so I'll leave it alone except to say, once again, that Republicans feel VERY strongly about killing an unborn child - unless, of course, it's an unborn child that you're dropping a bomb on. Nothing wrong with that!

 

 

Man, we gotta quit agreeing like this But I do have to say one thing; we don't intentionally kill pregnant women in Iraq, accidents do happen

 

 

Robin

"Desert Moon"

 

 

"I have a lawsuit against Sears. When the lawsuit is settled, I hope they call the Sears Tower in Chicago; Ron White's Big Ass Building" - Ron "Tater Salad" White

[Ron]

OK.

Homosexuality: There is a big study right now going on with the ELCA Lutheran congregations. The church (on the national level) is looking at revising its policy concerning homosexuality. Right now there is a lot of education and discussion going on, with members being asked to fill out a survey. Then next year in the fall a vote will be taken on two topics: "Should same sex couples be blessed in the church", and "Should the church permit ordained ministers to have a same sex partner" (current policy is if you are not married, you are expected to be celibate). With this in mind, I have read so much within the past year about same sex relationships and the various viewpoints concerning them I think I have learned more than I wanted to know. For the church this is a hard decision to make, let alone have a government set policy, where they cannot say "it's in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong" because the ACLU would be all over you if you said that. I do feel that a legal definition for "marriage" needs to be set. One thing I am ticked off about is companies that offer benefits to same sex couples (who are not married) but will not offer the same benefits to heterosexual couples that are not married, for whatever reason. I view this as descrimination against heterosexuals.

Abortion: I know of too many cases where females use abortion as their form of birth control. This is the reason why abortion needs to be regulated. As for the other circumstanses (rape, medical reason, etc.) I will honestly say it is a tough call. IMO an abortion is killing someone, no matter what stage of the pregnancy. I feel that this decision is a hard one to discuss because I think that it is one of those things that you do not know how you are going to react to unless it happens to you.

The Election: Will it please happen already?!? President Bush was 6 miles from my home today and screwed up all of the traffic again--as if we don't have enough problems with traffic around here. UGH! :angry:

 

 

Ron

[pinkfloyd1973]

Mac sez: The abortion thing. Everybody always wants to hide behind the rape thing! What about the ones who use it as birth control? Talk about closing your mind that is everybody is doing. A docotor takes the baby halfway out of the mothers womb and stabs it's head with scissors? Let me hold you down and stick scissors in your head. That is nothing but murder!!!!!!!!!! What about the abortion that sucks the baby to pieces? If you ever see that video of a baby being aborted then you will change your mind. No baby deserves this.

 

 

 

OK, so now you're talking about partial-birth abortions. I believe that those are illegal to do now. And no, abortion is not a version of birth control. I think you have terminating a pregnancy after the fact and contraception such as birth control pills and condoms confused. Not to gross anyone out, but where will it stop? We'll be outlawing condoms because the spermicide will kill soon to be babies and the pill because it kills the egg before it is even able to develop?

 

 

Robin

"Desert Moon"

[Ron]

And no, abortion is not a version of birth control. I think you have terminating a pregnancy after the fact and contraception such as birth control pills and condoms confused.

 

Unfortunately Robin, there are people that do take the attitude of "Who cares-if I get pregnent I'll just have an abortion"

A throughly DISGUSTING thought in itself but unfortunately true. Even more so when you have to consider that they do this more than once!!!

 

Ron

[Mac Knew]

And no, abortion is not a version of birth control. I think you have terminating a pregnancy after the fact and contraception such as birth control pills and condoms confused.

 

Unfortunately Robin, there are people that do take the attitude of "Who cares-if I get pregnent I'll just have an abortion"

A throughly DISGUSTING thought in itself but unfortunately true. Even more so when you have to consider that they do this more than once!!!

 

Ron

 

That is the abortion I am talking about.

 

Mac