Opinions on Kerry

[Jolly Roger]

"Atlas Shrugged" is a good one and another is "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.

If you still believe that Communism works then look at the PRC, no I don't mean the People Republic of California. The PRC has just given their citizens the right to own private property, the fundamental tenet of capitalism.

 

[jca320]

America was built on this selfishness, "the land of opportunity" which for all intensive purposes it is. Hell I don't mind being taxed, especially when it goes to schools, roads, and all that other crap. We should have raised taxes but the rich OBVIOUSLY needed a tax break from making their millions so they could a couple more.. million in return.
Rich get richer
Poor get poorer
And I am content to sit on the couch and watch t.v

Yeah, this makes no sense. 80% of Millionaires do not inherit their fortunes(Millionaire Next Door). And this money that goes to roads, school and other crap... So as long as we throw money at it, it will be better? I get to spend my time watching California turn to crap with that ideology.

John

 

[kevin]

akamifeldman: "Fly navy, seems to me like you want no govenment involvement in anything...except a woman's body, loving consenting individual's bedrooms..."

you had to open this can of worms. good.

1. ABORTION
by the very nature of the words you used, it's clear you dont understand the underlying principles of why abortion has been twisted into legalization over the past decades. for one: you, just as every very savvy women's lib participant has, turned abortion into a political debate.....where it has no place being. i give credit to the pro choice movement---they are brilliant people. understanding the nature of political correctness and the power of media, abortion was skirted (no pun intended) from an ethical/moral debate into an ethical/political debate, where the very nature of the argument hinges on sensitivities towards women's rightful opportunities in society. hence, anyone who opposes abortion is at least to a certain extent, opposed to women's rights. this of course is completely incorrect. how do i know? as a member of the catholic church i hear from both ends. the catholic church is way behind regarding women's rights (ie, no women priests) and hence by the same logic it is opposed to abortion because it has no regard for the rights of women- ya right. it's unbelievable to me how the most liberal people who preach open-mindedness and avoiding ignorance (which breeds racism, etc) are the most ignorant, judgemental people you will ever meet. on tangent, something our society has apparently lost sight of over the years- there is a distinct difference between judging someone's actions and judging someone. end tangent. let's bring abortion back to where it should be- a moral and ethical debate. every single argument for abortion (absolutely without exception) hinges on the "fact" that a fetus is not a HUMAN life until a certain point. you simply cant argue that it isn't life, because science itself defines the beginning of life as conception (of course, the pro-choice movement latched onto the concept of the MEDICAL definition of abortion as life beginning upon implantation, which of course is a medical thing, but has been twisted into a science thing). is it reasonable to think that a fetus can be a life without being a human life. read the abortion papers by Jane English (who offers a rather moderate view on the debate) and you can see her (and other's) good and bad points with regard to this specific issue. some arguments coming from both sides are ridiculous, some are valid. nevertheless, the point remains that if it's not proveable either way, can you really enact laws that make that destinction? ie, that abortion be legal up to a point. by the abortion laws that exist, when human life begins is defined........interestingly, that keeps changing (partial birth abortion, late trimester abortion, etc). if something is defined as absolute, how can it be changed? fact of the matter is, it hasnt been proven when human life begins (notice that im taking a completely non-religious approach to this) and hence you have to err on the side of "caution" when in doubt. ie, if you arent sure whether executing innocent people is right or wrong (let your brain deviate here for a second) can you make a law that assumes it is ok? no. unfortunately, if you study law, you realize that any amendment that grants a personal liberty is virtually impossible to repeal. hence, im sorry and ashamed to say, abortion is here to stay. there is no good argument for the notion that even the joining of sperm and egg genetically is not human life, or that the frozen embryos discarded after in vitro fertilization are not human lives. well they dont look human, right? is our humanity defined by our appearance? in that respect all we are is a component of chemicals. is our humanity defined by our ability to cognate at a certain level or to experience emotion? sure, which means someone who's undergone brain death or even who's in a coma is not completely human. ok, so you just have to have been able to experience that at one point. try telling a women who's miscarried that it was a life, but not really a human life, so dont worry about it too much. better luck next time. let's not even delve into the medical aspect of the procedures, for example, doctors breaking the hippocratic oath which states "do no harm". so let's look back at the argument....sound scientific evidence....some of it debatable, yes..........where was the part about me condemning the "right" of a women. where is the part about the government doesnt have a right to be involved? that's about as much a need for government involvement as you can get....it's called "laws".

2. Gay Marriage

"loving consenting individual's bedrooms..." - it's so funny how unbelievably predictable that liberal mindset is. playing devil's advocate is easy, and as soon as you make a factual statement or present credible evidence towards a social liberal's argument, one of 2 things happens: a) "you dont have a right to judge me" b) prove it (or something like that. since when did the government try to get involved in "loving consenting individual's bedrooms"? were they in yours last night? they werent in mine. dont think they ever tried to be. gay proponents have made it seem as though the government is trying to take away personal freedoms of homosexuals, or get involved in their personal lives...God knows the media has made it sound that way. here's a revelation.... the government is not trying to ban gay RELATIONSHIPS. what you choose to do in your own time is insignificant (provided it doesnt harm others). but marriage is not just a relationship- tangent, part of the reason the divorce rate is so high is because people see marriage and relationship as interchangeable- it is an institution. hence, it is defineable by law. "but we want the same financial benefits that heterosexual couples have"- i have absolutely no problem with that at all. neither does george bush. civil unions are on the horizon now and i think they should be ennacted. so now is marriage nothing more than a financial position in society....unfortunately yes, it has become that, another great reason divorce is up this year, and the golden wedding anniversaries are down. marriage is an institution and a sacrament (not necessarily just meaning a church one). there are plenty of debateable points here that i wont go into. one thing i will is this....if marriage cannot be defined as a man and women, it also cannot be defined as only 2 people, and if it cant be defined as two people, if you stretch just a little, you might not be able to define it between 2 human beings. dont think there arent people out there who have a thing for sheep and would welcome the opportunity to be brought into wedlock with a furry creature. enough said.

 

[mizzoufan]

Wow, lots of political views being tossed around here. Now for a few of my thoughts.

About taxes: I do believe that this nation is way overtaxed. I believe we do have a moral obligation to help the poor, but I think people do this through private orgainizations. Give these orgainizations tax breaks and these people will do even better. Historically when tax cuts are given the economy does better. People have more money because they didn't give it to the government, more things are purchased, and the government makes tax revenue anyway through the higher economy (sales tax, higher salaries, etc.) The amendment in the Constitution that made income taxes legal was only intended to be a few % of your income. It never was supposed to come to a almost 50% tax bracket. Working for the government until around August when I am not a government employee is bunk. Note that income tax was an amendment and not in the original constitution.

Sept 11th: No one could have forseen this happening, and how can anyone blame Bush for this? If anyone is to blame it is Clinton. He had three different opportunities to get Osama and they weren't taken. I believe that the one country even had him in custody to get on our good side and Clinton refused. Anyway, the point remains that these are bad people bent on U.S. destruction and if it wasn't Sept 11 it would be something else. I have a feeling that if we don't keep pressure on these people, Sept. 11 will seem mild compared to what they would do if unleashed.

Koyoto Protocol: Greenhouse gases are bad and need to be reformed, but the numbers the U.S were expected to meet were ludicrious. We were going to have to cut out output by like 8% according to numbers several years ago. Our output has exceeded those numbers and would be impossible to cut our output to not only meet those numbers several years ago, but also an addition x percent. Can't do it, in addition, China was not involved in this treaty, when in about 20 years they will exceed our output. Their main source of energy comes from coal which puts out more greenhouse gas than any other. They also don't have EPA retrictions on everything like U.S. markets do. Them being considered an unindustrialized country is a false statement, especially since their economy is growing faster than almost any economy in the world.

Jobs: I do feel bad about people losing their jobs, but those unemployment numbers are somewhat misleading. Those polls were taken in bigs markets (manufacturing, construction, etc.) and taken from the biggest companies in the world or in the U.S. Anyway, those numbers are down, but what that number doesn't reflect is the number of small business that were created during this time period and that number is extremely higher so don't always accept what you hear.

 

[Kycntryboy]

Can't we all just get along?

 

[akamifeldman]

Interesting posts...

Kevin: It was hard to read your post (something about the lack of capitalization and paragraph use got me) but I think I understood the points you were trying to make.

every single argument for abortion (absolutely without exception) hinges on the "fact" that a fetus is not a HUMAN life until a certain point....is it reasonable to think that a fetus can be a life without being a human life.

Yes, and that 'point' is the moment when 'it' could live on its own if removed from the mother. Before that point, it is dependent on the mother's life for its life, and is not separate. Life begins at conception, huh? So then why aren't individual sperm and eggs life too...they could become human life too..? Suppose I should start naming all my millions of sperm individually...

On gay marriage: Kevin, the government has tried to interfere in loving consenting individuals bedrooms. Remember the anti-sodomy law struck down by the Supreme Court last summer? In the 'Great State of Texas,' it was against the law for two homosexuals to have sex until the Supreme Court called it unconstitutional! Come on now, you couldn't have forgotton about that, it was just last summer!!!

it's so funny how unbelievably predictable that liberal mindset is.

Reminds me of the scenes at the end of 1984 when O'Brien is trying to make Winston 'sane' again..."TWO AND TWO MAKE FIVE" Eh, what're you gonna do, after all,
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

 

[Squid]

I think we agree that the basic idea is correct, but the way it is executed is not perfect. True?

Communism/socialism is good in theory, but will fail because of human nature, that is the want to be #1. There is no #1 in communism, and it is easily corruptable.

 

[mizzoufan]

there are some problems with the arguement that life starts when the baby can live apart from its mother. One of these problems is that this time table keeps changing as medical technology gets better. 20 yrs. ago it was unheard of that a baby could live out of the womb at around 22 weeks from conception. Today, there have been several babies live at 22 weeks. According to neonatologists (new-born doctors) I think 26 weeks is the 50/50 mark for survival and 30 weeks it is up to 90%. The fact remains that this standard keeps changing, which in my opinion is no standard at all. Babies are in fact dependent on their mothers for a significant period of time, but life in general is dependent on many factors. If a fish is taken out of water it dies. We are dependent on air and food and temp and many other things otherwise we die too. Life in general is fragile and dependant on many things. Life does start at conception. Around 2 weeks after conception, a heart beat can be detected. NO, you shouldn't start naming your indiviual sperm, because they are single cells, and do not qualify as life nor do they have any potential of becoming life. They are differientiated to their terminal point, plus they only have a haploid number of choromosomes so that arguement is bunk.

 

[BigSkyGuy]

Kerry's Voting Record on Defense

Not to change in mid-stream entirely, but I thought this was pertinent info on Congressman Kerry considering the inherent nature of this forum. The source of my information is http://www.hannity.com/story.php?content=/kerrydefense.

Kerry's Voting Record on Defense....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kerry has voted for at least SEVEN major reductions in Defense and Military spending, necessary for our national security:


1) In 1996 - Introduced Bill to slash Defense Department Funding by $6.5 Billion.


2) In 1995 - Voted to freeze Defense spending for 7 years, slashing over $34 billion from Defense.


3) Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution - Defense Freeze. "Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training."

4) In 1993 - Introduced plan to cut numerous Defense programs, including:

Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews
Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one
Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force
Terminate the Navy's coastal mine-hunting ship program
Force the retirement of no less than 60,000 members of the Armed Forces in one year.

5) Has voted repeatedly to cut Defense spending, including:

In 1993, voted against increased Defense spending for Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.

In 1992, voted to cut $6 billion from Defense.

In 1991, voted to slash over $3 Billion from Defense. Shift money to social programs.

In 1991, voted to cut defense spending by 2%

Voted repeatedly to cut or eliminate funding for B-2 Stealth Bomber

Voted repeatedly against Missile Defense - Weapons Kerry sought to phase out were VITAL in Iraq. "[K]erry supported cancellation of a host of weapons systems that have become the basis of US military might-the high-tech munitions and delivery systems on display to the world as they leveled the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks." (Brian C. Mooney, "Taking One Prize, Then A Bigger One," The Boston Globe, 6/19/03)


Military hardware he felt we no longer need since the "cold war" is past. The money would be better spent on "social" programs. These weapons are now the core of our military might.

F-16 Fighting Falcons.
B-1Bs B-2As F-15 And F-16s
M1 Abrams
Patriot Missile
AH-64 Apache Helicopter
Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser

6) During 1980s Kerry And Michael Dukakis joined forces with liberal group dedicated to slashing Defense. Kerry sat on the board of "Jobs With Peace Campaign," which sought to "develop public support for cutting the defense budget..."("Pentagon Demonstrators Call For Home-Building, Not Bombs," The Associated Press, 6/3/88)


7) While running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to cut Defense Spending. "On what he'll do if he's elected to Congress," Kerry said he would 'bring a different kind of message to the president." He said he would, "Vote against military appropriations." ("Candidate's For Congress Capture Campus In Andover," Lawrence [MA] Eagle-Tribune, 4/21/72)


"So you can look at all the potential threats of the world, and when you add the expenditures of all of our allies to the United States of America, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'What is it that we are really preparing for in a post-cold-war world?'"
(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 5/15/96, p. S5061)

 

[mizzoufan]

yep, communism would work in the ideal world, but human nature does not allow that to happen. Everyone wants to be rewarded for the amount of work they put in. In communism there is no incentive to do worse or better. The best at anything don't get rewarded. Commune type societies have worked, but in very small communities. It could not be the base for a super power. Capatalism is the best structured economy there is. Yes there is still flaws, but its the best we have. Personally, I want to get rewarded for my efforts and I think everyone else does to. As more government regulations and taxes occur however, it is harder and harder to do that.

 

[squeeze]

Communism/socialism is good in theory, but will fail because of human nature, that is the want to be #1. There is no #1 in communism, and it is easily corruptable.

That's the exact reason Communism is NOT good in theory. Marx was an idiot and threw out all accounts of basic human nature. Explain to me how something can be "good in theory" when it ignores the most basic nature of those people it theorizes about?

/studied Marx a decent bit, still thinks he was an idiot

 

[Squid]

i agree that it throw out human nature completely. it looks good on paper, however, if humans were predictable in that they want everyone to have every benefit, i.e. everyone has a job and a roof over their head and eat well, etc, etc, etc. we as people would like nothing better than everyone to be happy, sure, I don't want people on the whole to be miserable. that's why it's good on paper.

just like world peace is a good ideal, everyone would like nothing better. but is it going to happen in my, your, or our great-grandkids lifetimes? ha!

i've done the whole sociology thing and symbolic interaction is the theory that seems totally, uhh, crap.

 

[Squid]

oh, and back on the first /second page, there was a vague reference to hitler and bush. umm, last I remember hitler was a socialist (National Socialist German Workers Party, volkswagen anyone?), and bush is a capitalist... biiiiiiiiig difference. big. collosal.

 

[petescheu]

yeah, that little difference, and the fact that Hitler was responsible for at least, what 20 million deaths for his appalling little "Jewish Problem" and starting WWII? Even the notion of comparing the two of them just SCREAMS of pure and utter ignorance... which seems to be a common theme of the bleeding heart liberals. But that's just me...

 

[akamifeldman]

Well, if we're going to talk about human nature as it applies to governmental/economic systems, lets look at capitalism too for a second. Isn't it the only one that actually rewards gratitutous greed? I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I have nothing wrong with people making money for themselves. Certain types of greed is good, if it spurs people on to be more productive at work to make more money to have more stuff, etc. But that's not the problem. Gratitutous, disgusting, immoral greed is the downfall of capitalism. The kind of system and greed that allows bloated corporations to force third-world poor into making our running shoes for cents on the day while the executives make tens of millions; that's what we have now. You want to inject 'human nature' into this discussion? Fine, but apply it to your own argument and see how it holds up. Sure, capitalism may be the best we have now, but that's not to say there aren't (massive) problems with it. Instead of defending a problematic and disgusting system, why don't we try working and devolping new ideas, instead of shutting them off???