This thread is just bizarre. vanilla, what’s with all the non-sequiturs?
What? What choice? How on earth (even assuming hyperbolic false assumptions) does one get from Cuba to Hillary Clinton? What are you talking about, and to what are you referring?
And who, exactly, are the Poopy Heads?
What? This is making my head hurt. Please tell me you are trying to be ironic; I don’t think I can fathom the idea that people actually, truly think that one of the main goals of the Democratic party is to purposely “kill the unborn.”
Am I being whooshed here? vanilla, are you actually positing that there exists only one morality, and Christians have the trademark?
No, I am not whooshing you.
I won’t provide a link, but I think they are saying Hillary advocates Marxism (recently) and well, theyre just NUTS, aren’t they?
It ain’t rocket science. Fidel Castro is President of the Council of State and President of the Council of Ministers for the Republic of Cuba. (Head of state and head of government.) Castro made Cuba a Marxist state on 26 July, 1953. Karl Marx declared that the proletarians “have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.” (Manifesto of the Communist Party, “I. Bourgeois and Proletarians”). Hillary Clinton has announced, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” (San Francisco, 26 June, 2004.) Since Marx advocates the destruction of securities for, and insurances of, individual property, and since Senator Clinton has assumed the magisterial authority to take things away from people, she either presumes that those securities and insurances have already been destroyed, or else she intends to destroy them.
Absolutely. Because raising taxes slightly is exactly the same as abolishing the notion of property and making all industry state-run. Exactly the same. :rolleyes:
You will note that the poster did not ask for exact equivalencies (which, of course, cannot possibly exist between any two separate entities anyway), but rather for how “(even assuming hyperbolic false assumptions) does one get from Cuba to Hillary Clinton”. That was the question that I answered. Perhaps Ms. Clinton would have done herself a favor by avoiding such blunt phrases as “We will take things from you” and using instead the more usual and cryptic phrase that you cited, “We will raise your taxes slightly”.
Robert Bauman of Maryland was a very vocal conservative Republican Congressman in the early 1980s. Then he was outed.
One of the Crane brothers (Dan?, it wasn’t Phil), also in the House, had an affair with a late-teens female intern. (He was voted out by his constituents, as I recall. At the same time, Gerry Stubbs, Massachusettes Democrate, House member, was re-elected after it was revealed he had an affair with a late-teens male intern.)
Bob Dole had an affair in the early 1970’s, tho his first wife didn’t know that & it was not part of their divorce. It’s not been stated if the other woman was Elizabeth.
There- I did as requested.
That said, I vote on these issues- which candidate is friendlier to policies that regulate/restrict abortion, encourage stable (monogamous & straight) marriage, free up the marketplace, encourage economic growth, reduce taxes, maintain a strong military defense, support the security of Israel and respect the role of religion in public culture. So till better & electable candidates in other parties come along, it’ll be Republican voting for me for a while.
> Bob Dole had an affair in the early 1970’s, tho his first wife didn’t know that &
> it was not part of their divorce. It’s not been stated if the other woman was
> Elizabeth.
It wasn’t Elizabeth. Just after the 1996 election, several newspapers did stories about the woman that Dole had been having an affair with at the time he divorced his first wife. Her name had apparently been known for a long time among those covering political stories. When the newspapers were asked why they didn’t release the story before the election (which they could have done), they said, “What would have been the point? It would have seemed like we were piling onto Dole. It was already clear that he was going to lose the election. How would knowing the name of the woman he was having an affair with added anything to the fact that he had divorced his first wife?”
Seriously, vanilla, you’re being really offensive and hypocritical, and I’m having a hard time not reacting personally to your posts. Don’t be rude.
Your argument is nothing more than a tautology.
Call me immoral because I support the right of women to choose? Let’s see how this argument works when applied to Bush-supporting conservatives:
They must all be immoral (whatever that means; you never answered my question about the existence of one/ many morality/ies) because:
Bush supports killing mentally handicapped people;
Bush supports destroying/ not protecting parts of the environment, despite the fact that humans are supposed to be the custodians of the Earth according to the Bible;
Bush does not support the right of people to make their own decisions, despite the fact that again, in the Bible humans are given free will;
Bush supports killing innocent people as long as (he thinks) the overall utility is positive, another non-Biblical idea;
Bush does not support turning the other cheek (a fundamental axiom of Christian morality);
Bush makes promises he does not keep (duh, he’s a politician, but I’m arguing about Bush specifically, and when one claims to be a moral, godly man, it ‘should’ mean that he adheres to that ‘higher’ standard);
Bush does not believe that all men are created equal nor that all men should have the same rights (Guantánamo);
Bush prefers to make himself the judge and executor of morality, as opposed to relying on input from others or God;
Bush has disingenously claimed to want to support poorer people, to make America more “equal” at the same time that his tax plan, if implemented over the next several years, would wind up giving the vast majority of relief to a tiny fraction of Americans, and has cut social programs.
Ergo, you, vanilla, by your reductive logic, support all of these things, and by my judgement (and even your own), are immoral.
ps. It’s just silly to say that Democrats support abortion, when GHW Bush supported abortion rights before he became Reagan’s VP.
If you’re not being hypothetical, or didn’t accidentally type “Bush” when you meant “Hitler,” I would like a site for this, please. I suspect the claim this is the anti-death penalty equivalent of “Kerry supports killing babies” but you never know around here.
My post was deliberately over-simplified to (uh, hopefully) get the point across to vanilla that such blanket statements are ridiculous, but, as to Bush himself…
I’ll just quote from my source (that’s where I learned of it, and the author is far more eloquent than I). From The President of Good and Evil, by Peter Singer page 49:
"A a national consensus against exectuing the mentally retarded began to build, Bush, as governor of Texas, came out against a bill that would have prohibited the use of the death penalty against profoundly retarded criminals, with IQs of less than 65. His explanation for his position was simply: ‘I like the law the way it is right now.’ Although Texans strongly support the death penalty, on this issue Bush was more extreme than most of his constituents - a 1998 poll showed that 73% of Texans were opposed to executing the retarded. The bill was passed by the Texas Senate, which is dominated by Republicans, but wiht Bush opposing it, it failed in the House. In May 1997, bush denied an appeal for the clemency on behalf of Terry Washington, a thirty-three-year-old mentally retarded man with the communication skills of a seven-year-old. Washington was executed.
“If Bush supports the death penalty because he believes that it saves lives by deterring potential murderers, and if mentally retarded people are morally innocent, then in signing the death warrant for Terry Washington, Bush was deliberately causing the death of a morally innocent human as a means of saving the lives of others. That is, of course, exactly what he refuses to support in the case of human embryos [the chapter deals with stem cell research].”
That doesn’t prove that “Bush supports killing mentally handicapped people,” but it does prove that he opposed a bill that would have prevented their execution. The article doesn’t indicate what Bush didn’t like about the bill.