Just got back from synagogue. So let’s see what’s going on.
9:45 Good fast defense of John Edwards and he’s talking about health care. Seems to be doing a good job.
9:47 Has Bush been sounding this whiney the whole time?
9:49 So Bush is blaming the recession on Clinton? Gee. There’s a surprise.
9:50 Thus far, Bush seems more comfortable in this format than he was last week. On the other hand, he had all the questions ahead of time. I’m not sure if he answered the question though.
9:52 Kerry’s doing a good presentation. On the other hand, I’m not sure if he’s answering the question either. For that matter, I’ve forgotten what it was.
9:53 Okay, the moderator just said, “How?” Bush is not answering it. Let’s see if Kerry presents how.
9:54 Nope. He didn’t either.
9:55 Well, if Kerry gets elected and winds up raising taxes, this answer’ll come back to bite him on the ášš.
9:57 Wait…”Either he’s going to break all these promises he made, or he’s going to raise taxes.” Bush just said the same thing twice. He should be writing Daily Bugle headlines. “Spider-Man: Threat or Menace.”
9:59 “Look at the record.” Mr. President, you really, REALLY don’t want your record looked at too closely.
10:00 I’ll be interested to see the fact checkers on Bush’s response about environmental initiatives.
10:02 Well, Kerry just lost Boston.
10:03 Good riposte on Kyoto by Kerry.
10:06 Good answer from Kerry about being competitive.
10:08 Bush continues to hammer the “didn’t show up” thing. I really think someone whose military history is criticized for his not showing up shouldn’t be going down that path.
10:09 Okay, DOES Bush own a timber company? Because if he does and it really is news to him, boy, that’s going to be all over the papers tomorrow.
10:11 “I don’t think the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all.” Oooooh, that may not have been the smartest thing to say.
10:12 “Whole bunch of folks.” Kerry’s starting to talk like Bush.
10:14 Kerry seems reaaaally uncomfortable in handling the stem cell question. Which is odd, because he’s been extremely firm on his opinion about it. He probably doesn’t want to risk offending the extreme religious folks any more than Bush does. Silly. They’re gonna vote for Bush either way. Might as well just go for it.
10:16 Never seen Kerry so tongue-tied.
10:17 Bush is doing better on this question than Kerry, which is interesting since so many people support stem cell research.
10:21 Kerry is absolutely knocking the judge question out of the park while Bush was muddy over it.
10:23 Kerry is doing only so-so with the question about tax dollars. I get the whole “respecting” thing, but it’s really all over the place.
10:27 “It’s never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.” And Bush is not getting it.
10:28 Ohhhhh,Bush is going right down the chute on ths question, I have a feeling.
10:28 Wow. Bush’s rebuttal was really quite awful.
10:29 Those last two should have been switched. Bush’s rebuttal on partial birth was awful. The down the chute is on the question about making mistakes, and yeah, I was right. Awful.
10:30 “Gut check time?”” I like that. “IT’S GUT CHECK TIME!”
10:31 “Saddam would be in power and the world would be a lot better off.”
10:33 You know waht would be interesting? If Kerry said, “If you guys want, I’ll hang out and answer more of your questions, unprepared. Just toss ’em out.”
10:35 Kerry’s closing was basic stump speech.
10:36 Same with Bush. “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” “9/11.” Typical buzz scare talk.
• 
Luigi,
John Kerry said this:
***Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can’t afford it otherwise.
I said this:
***Like when he said the government should help pay for abortion since it a woman
Craig wrote: Well, it’s hard to not have such distain when various groups of said religious people have killed, destroyed, and forcibly converted others because of their beliefs, among other things. In general, I just flat out think we’re better off without major religion.
You are right that much wrong has been done in the name of religion, including Christianity. But you are ignorant of history if you think you would be better off without Christianity. It has done far more good than it has done evil. Christians were the ones who curbed many of the abuses in Rome. Christians were the top scholars and scientists for the last 1,000 years. A lot of our music and other forms of art that we value today came from Christians. The very concept of hospitals has its roots in Christian teachings and practices. Slavery in the modern world came to an end because of what some today call right wing radical fundamentalist Christians. This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom by Christians. And the list goes on.
Perhaps the best term is “historical fiction” then. I do wonder at times how much of the Bible can be proven to be historically accurate.
I realize this is not the best place for a debate on this topic. There is much in the Bible that cannot be proven to be historically accurate because it is the only existing record of for some of recorded history. But for the points when there is an outside record, it has been shown to be enormously accurate and consistent. Things that even 20 years ago people said the Bible made up have now been verified as true. Let me suggest a book that is easy to read. “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel does an excellent job of showing how the Gospels are a very reliable historical record.
The only reason some want to call the Bible “historical fiction” is because they don’t like what it says. We rely on many other ancient documents with far less outside documentation. There has not been a single story in the Bible that has been clearly proven false. There are many that are questioned, but there is a lack of evidence, not proof the Bible is wrong. It is up to you whether you want to read it or accept it, but take the time to actually research this issue before declaring it is fiction. (By the way, I would suggest Penn & Teller are not the best place to start in your research efforts.)
Jim in Iowa
Luigi Novi: It is not only an
Jim in Iowa: If you are out hunting, it is your responsibility to make sure you are shooting at a deer (or whatever animal you are hunting) and not another hunter. If you were pointing a gun at a child, would you tell me I had to prove the “positive,” that the gun was loaded, before you pulled the trigger? You have set up the argument in such a way to conveniently ignore the question.
You’re wrong again. In any court case involving murder, the prosecution has to prove that it was murder. Therefore, yes, you would have to prove that the child was alive before being shot (he could’ve shot a dead body), you have to prove that the gun shot wound caused the death of the child (what if the bullet grazed the kids arm?), you have to prove gun was loaded before he pulled the trigger (meaning you have to prove the bullet that killed the kid came from his weapon), and you have to prove that he was the one who pulled the trigger as well (just because it was his gun, or that he held the gun at some point, doesn’t mean he killed ’em). Don’t you watch any of the CSI shows?
Anyway, be sure you get your metaphors right in the future.
> You know what would be interesting? If
> Kerry said, “If you guys want, I’ll hang out and
> answer more of your questions, unprepared.
> Just toss ’em out.”
Senator Kerry no more wanted a true unscripted, open forum than Usurper Bush — both sides had a written contract with each other to keep as much control over the process as they could get, which is why Mr. Gibson had to approve the questions, why the microphones were turned off except during the reading of the pre-approved questions, why the questioners were threatened with physical removal on the spot and the cessation of the “debate” if any of them deviated from their pre-approved question, and why the minor parties were locked out (Libertarian nominee Michael Badnarik and Green nominee David Cobb were arrested outside the building by armored riot police). All of this is in the contract.
This “debate” was just as scripted as the Bartlet vs. Ritchie debate on The West Wing — but not nearly so well written as anything by Aaron Sorkin.
Jim in Iowa: The “God Squad” are hardly right-wing radical fundamentalist Christians, yet they clearly understand that Kerry’s position is “profoundly immoral an disingenous.” Whether you agree with me on abortion or not, they state my point well: Kerry’s position is a joke. He is either believes it is murder but does not care, or he is lieing and does not really believe life begins at conception. Those are the only two options that exist.
Sheesh man… wrong, wrong, wrong… to put it to you like this:
My mother wasn’t happy that I decided to goto straight to college, and work my way through instead of going to the military first. It was her conviction, her belief, that my life would be better as a military officer, however, she respected the fact that it was my decision to make… it was not her place to tell me what to do.
Or… while, I, personally am against pørņ, I defend the right for pørņ to exist. While I disagree with the degrading of women in those movies, it’s not my place to decide what grown women allow to be done to their own bodies, nor is it my place to decide what people watch in the confines of their own homes.
While Kerry may have the opinion that abortion is wrong, he still respects the fact that it is the right of the individual to choose that option, and he knows that it’s not his place to deicde for the woman, especially if he’s not the guy who got her pregnant in the first place (but that’s a whole nother matter).
And it’s not the church’s place either, Jim.
Speaking of the Missou-ree vs. Missou-rah thing, as a St. Louisan, I can tell you that it’s an urban-vs.-rural thing. You’ll hear the “-ree” ending pronounced by anyone raised in St. Louis or Kansas City, and the “-rah” ending pronounced by anyone raised outstate, such as John Ashcroft, for example. It isn’t “wrong”, it’s dialectical.
Non of you have addressed my point about the death penalty. If Bush is so concerned about his faith and truly believes that all life is sacred, then why is he so gung-ho to kill criminals? Isn’t Christianity all about giving a person the chance to confess their sins and repent? How will a convicted murderer do that if he is dead? This is where his hypocrisy comes in. You can’t be pro-life and pro-death penalty if you are basing these things on your religion.
You’re wrong again. In any court case involving murder, the prosecution has to prove that it was murder.
My metaphor is correct, you are just twisting it to something I didn’t say. You are turning it into a court room drama. (Actually, the person would be convicted of man-slaughter, not murder, but that is not the point.) Let’s talk real life for the moment. My point is very simple: Life obviously begins at some point between conception and birth. Do you know when exactly that is? Since you do not, you do not know if you are killing an unborn child who deserves the same rights as you and me, or if you are simply getting rid of an unwanted tissue mass.
Here is one more example: A person is unconcious and “appears” to be dead. Do you just bury them or do you make sure they are really dead first? You would check first to make sure the person was dead. You always err on the side of protecting someone’s life unless it is in self defense. If a doctor assumed someone was dead and started cutting him open to remove his heart for medical research and killed the man, he would be guilty of malpractice.
Sheesh man… wrong, wrong, wrong… to put it to you like this: My mother wasn’t happy that I decided to goto straight to college, and work my way through instead of going to the military first. It was her conviction, her belief, that my life would be better as a military officer, however, she respected the fact that it was my decision to make… it was not her place to tell me what to do.
Did you totally miss my point? Kerry said he believes life begins at conception. If true, then why would abortion not be murder?
Your example is not valid because it ignores what Kerry said. A better example is the following. Imagine that you had an infant son and you lived in Texas. You had a habit of leaving your son alone in the car for hours with the windows rolled up, no AC, in 100 degree heat. You could use all sorts of excuses of how the baby slowed you down, got in your way, was a pain to take care of, etc., but if the child died from heat stroke in your car, you would be convicted of manslaughter. If your mom knew you did this and did nothing about it, she would be guilty as well (perhaps not in a court of law, but definitely morally). It would be immoral and inexcusable for someone to say that he or she did not like what you were doing, but they had to respect your decision. When your decisions end the life of another human being, it is no longer your decision.
Until you prove that the child is not a human being, alive and deserving of the same benefits as a one month old baby, your example is irrelevant. Your actions are hurting another human being.
Frankly, I find it amazing how easy it is to ignore a simple question: When does life begin for a baby? As I have said before, it clearly does at some point. Why do you hide behind the “I don’t know so it doesn’t matter” answer? Because if it could be proven that life began at say, 3 months in the womb, it would make abortion after the third month of pregnancy immoral. That is unacceptable to many people (I could speculate on the reasons, but it really does not matter why). Life begins at some point. The burden is on you to show you are not killing an innocent child.
Jim in Iowa
I just read on Yahoo news that Christoper Reeve passed away. I hope Superman is finally running where ever he is..
Rest in peace.
Non of you have addressed my point about the death penalty. If Bush is so concerned about his faith and truly believes that all life is sacred, then why is he so gung-ho to kill criminals? Isn’t Christianity all about giving a person the chance to confess their sins and repent? How will a convicted murderer do that if he is dead? This is where his hypocrisy comes in. You can’t be pro-life and pro-death penalty if you are basing these things on your religion.
There is one very significant difference between abortion and the death penalty. The child is completely innocent, while the person being executed is guilty. There is no hypocrisy because you are comparing apples to oranges.
Note: For the sake of this discussion, let’s agree that the person is actually guilty of cold blooded murder. They are not falsely accused and they did not just have an accident.
According to the Bible, life is precious. The death penalty is based on this principle. First, the only equal punishment for taking another’s life is to forfeit your own. Second, if you took one person’s life, it is possible you will do so again. So to protect other innocent lives, the murderer is executed.
The Bible had safeguards, such as requiring two eye witnesses, to try to avoid someone being wrongly executed. In addition, if it is later found that an eye witness lied, that witness would die. While not perfect, it was actually a remarkable achievement for its day. Instead of there being revenge where a whole family would be wiped out in revenge for one death, there were strict limits and guidlines which protected life overall.
In regards to repentance, a person who is executed by the government does have a chance to repent since it is not a revenge killing done without warning. The murder does have a chance to repent. There is no obligation to give him or her a lifetime to repent.
The Bible does not require the death penalty in every circumstance. Indeed, there are many cases where mercy is shown. But fundamentally, executing a murder is the “maximum” and just punishment for the crime of murder.
Jim in Iowa
Then why is the Pope against it? Isn’t he God’s interpreter on earth?
And if you say that you are not a Catholic Christian, then you are just proving our point. Different views for different religions.
Then why is the Pope against it? Isn’t he God’s interpreter on earth? … And if you say that you are not a Catholic Christian, then you are just proving our point. Different views for different religions.
How exactly am I proving your point? It really doesn’t matter how many religions (or variations on Christianity) that there are. For at least some things, there seems to be an absolute (or at least something close to it). Every culture that has ever existed has some prohibition on murder. The details vary, but the concept is similar. Every culture rejects a “Judas,” someone who betrays them, as a bad person.
I firmly believe in religious freedom here in America, but that is not feedom from religion. If a Buddist is opposed to the death penalty and a muslim is for it, there is nothing wrong with that. Someone can be completely opposed to abortion for purely logical reasons that have absolutely no basis in an organized religion.
The problem is not religions, it is people. You can go to many cultures today who effectively remove religion who disagree on various issues. When you get below the surface, there are just as many variations among non religious people as among those who follow a particular religion.
Your point was that being pro-life and pro the death penalty was inconsistent. I just showed you that it is not necessarily so. They are two separate issues. The fact that the Pope disagrees is irrelevant. That does not mean I am right and he is wrong. It is just that the two views are not mutually exclusive.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa: Did you totally miss my point? Kerry said he believes life begins at conception. If true, then why would abortion not be murder?
Well… let’s see… my skin cells are alive, does that mean anytime I scratch that I’m commiting murder? No, it doesn’t.
Roaches are alive. Should everyone who owns a can of Raid be sent to jail?
There is no difinitive moment when you can say a ton of cells become a human being. Kerry can think a human being begins at conception, but he can’t prove for a fact that it does. Just because you think it’s murder, doesn’t magically make it a fact that it’s murder. By your standards, every woman who has a miscarriage should be tossed in jail for manslaughter.
People once justified slavery because they thought slaves were no smarter than dogs; just animals to be trained. However, it’s a proven fact that any black child has the same intellectual potential as any other human being born on the planet, thus slavery was outlawed.
There are no clear facts regarding when a fetus becomes a human being, just opinions, and to make laws based solely around opinions is not only irresponsible, but is also “profoundly immoral and disingenous”. While Kerry may strongly believe life begins at conception, Kerry, however, is smart enough to realize his opinion is just that, his opinion, and nothing more.
That would be like, if a mayor had a strong personal conviction that everytime someone cursed, a bird suddenly dropped dead somewhere on earth, (say this mayor was a strong believer of the Chaos theory) should he err on the side of “life” and push to outlaw cursing? I think not.
There is one very significant difference between abortion and the death penalty. The child is completely innocent, while the person being executed is guilty. There is no hypocrisy because you are comparing apples to oranges.
I disagree
According to the Bible, life is precious. The death penalty is based on this principle.
Killing as a punishment is based on the idea that life is prescious…. I surprised you missed the contradiction in that. If you take the stance that all life is prescious, then ALL life is prescious, including the life of the murderer, and killing is therefore never justified under any and every circumstances. No exceptions.
But if you want to make exceptions to the rule based on your own opinion, then you have to allow others to make exceptions based on their opinions, right?
First, the only equal punishment for taking another’s life is to forfeit your own.
Forefitting your own life is suicide, the act of killing one’s self, or, as a stretch, giving permission to allow ones self to be killed. However, an execution is not suicide. No one who gets executed wants to, or allows themselves to get killed… or do people sign a waiver before sitting in the electric chair?
Second, if you took one person’s life, it is possible you will do so again. So to protect other innocent lives, the murderer is executed.
So, what, locking them up, and keeping them away from everyone else won’t work?
Not sure if anyone missed it, but Christopher Reeve dies. 🙁
Truly a Superman on and off screen and a hero to us all.
Fred
“Bush completely dodged the “3 mistake” question — and I think he was totally right to do so. It was a very unfair question.”
Right, because asking Dukakis about his wife getting raped was totally fair.
PAD
The Constitution says you ghave a right to bear arms. It says nothing about being provided one for free.
Although I think every home should be issued one firearm for free. Along with a mandatory gun safety class if you want your free gun.
And Jim, you’re whole repetivive stupid argument of “The Bible says…” is meaningless and pointless because the USA is NOT a religion-based government (Theocracy?), it’s a representative-Republic (and not a Democracy like Bush and others claim).
Besides, if you’re unwilling to show respect for other people’s beliefs, why should we tolerate yours?
Ahh, we’re already back to the wonderful word “tolerate”.
The only reason some want to call the Bible “historical fiction” is because they don’t like what it says.
Umm, no. I would say it’s historical fiction because I think it is impossible to walk up to a body of water and part it with the wave of your hand (roughly speaking). And that is one example of many.
I think you’re being very short-sighted when you say that people don’t believe the Bible only because they don’t like it.
Slick: Killing as a punishment is based on the idea that life is prescious…. I surprised you missed the contradiction in that. If you take the stance that all life is prescious, then ALL life is prescious, including the life of the murderer, and killing is therefore never justified under any and every circumstances. No exceptions.
But if you want to make exceptions to the rule based on your own opinion, then you have to allow others to make exceptions based on their opinions, right?
Well said, and my point exactly. Jim thinks it’s OK to murder criminals, but it’s not OK to have an abortion. He says they are two separate issues, but how can it be? The action is to stop life in both cases. In the case of abortion it is MY belief that you are stopping it before it starts, hence no murder, while the death penalty stops life after it starts, hence the immorality. Taking a murderers’ life is revenge, not justice.
“Did you totally miss my point? Kerry said he believes life begins at conception. If true, then why would abortion not be murder?”
You said it best: Kerry said he BELIEVES…
He realizes that it is a belief, and not a fact, which is very good and very refreshing.
And as far as pregnancy being inconvenient or a burden, realize that a developing fetus is more or less a parasite up to a certain point. It will take the nutrients it needs from mom, whether it gets it from mom eating well or syphoning (sp?) it right out of her muscles and bones. My aunt was pretty poor about getting enough calcium during her pregnancies, and now she has bone density issues because the babies took what they needed out of her anyway. I’m by no means saying babies=evil or anything, but just something to think about when deciding why a woman should have the right to make her own decisions concerning abortion (I personally couldn’t go through with it and would have a tough time if my wife wanted one).
Monkeys.
He realizes that it is a belief, and not a fact, which is very good and very refreshing.
Yeah, I always find it refreshing when someone doesn’t have strength to stand up for his convictions!
That is what I look for in my political leaders, someone who says he believes in something but does nothing about it.
It shows real moral fortitude!
No, it’s refreshing to see someone, anyone, realize that just because you believe something doesn’t mean you are right and that you can force others to bend to your will. There is a difference between having a belief based on “gut feelings” and religion and having a belief based on facts. Sticking up for the latter could be construed as moral fortitude, the former is blindness and zeolotry when one refuses to acknowledge other factors.
You can stand up for something and say “I think this is wrong”, but it doesn’t mean you can control other people just because you think you’re right when you can’t prove it.
Monkeys
It showes him to be on higher moral ground than people like Bush and the Aytollah’s who force their religious BELIEFS on others through force of law.
THe hi-jackers of 09/11 fame BELIEVED in what they were doing and BELIEVED it was their god’s will. Does that mean you worship them and respect them?
Says a lot more about you than what you say about Kerry…
You people who are anti-choice think this is an easy decision for a woman. We all know the potential for life exists, but there are so many reasons why a woman is not able to care for a child. Forget about what the pregnancy itself does to a womans’ body. What about the 18+ years of financial, moral, and physical responsibility of caring for the child? What about the woman’s partner? If he takes no responsiblity and she is unable to do this alone? (And please don’t tell me that the courts will help. Men get out of child support everyday, some just by refusing to pay. And money is not the only issue.) It is one of the most important jobs any person can attempt. Some fail, which is why we have many problems in this country. Kerry is right. He respects the views of those who do not believe in abortion and even shares them on a personal level. But he does not want to legislate from his religious views. Except for the current administration, that is what leaders of our country are supposed to do.
There is a big difference between “standing up” for one’s convictions and forcing them on others. Sometimes a person has two separate convictions and they have to pick one before the other. I, for example, believe that abortion is wrong, but I also believe that our government should not make decisions based on religious principle, nor do I believe that one person’s religious opinion should be forced on another. My beliefs on abortion are rooted in my religious beliefs and not on absolute facts. Therefore, my strong conviction that “Congress shall make no law…” overrides my personal feelings on abortion, and I would have to side with Kerry.
Does that mean that I’m not standing up for my beliefs, Ken?
Eric
Yes, the way our legal system is set up so that it is fluid and can be changed, that is exactly what that means.
I don’t want a leader who will do nothing to change bad laws.
Getting off the religious straw-man argument, there is considerable amounts of medical proof that supports abortion is killing a living being. Most likely those who support abortion are doing it for personal opinion moreso than facts, as evidenced by the anti-life posts here.
Ken: I don’t want a leader who will do nothing to change bad laws.
Well, what is a “bad law”? A law that you don’t like? Laws can be fair or unfair, just or unjust, but none of them are “bad”. That’s like having “bad words”.
Secondly, to say abortion is murder, you are therefore accusing anyone who has an abortion of commiting murder. To justifiably change the law to reflect that, Kerry, as the accuser, would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that abortion is murder. While Jim in Iowa believes that we should err on the side of life, our legal system is still based on the philosophy of “Innocent until proven guilty”. The accused always has the benefit of the doubt. No Exceptions.
While Kerry may believe life begins at conception, in order to change the law to reflect that, Kerry would have to goto the Supreme Court and prove that a human life does begin at conception. He can’t, and he knows he can’t. Therefore, he can’t justifiably change the law to reflect that arguement. You may not agree with a woan’s right to choose, but at the momment, it is a fair and just ruling.
Ken: Getting off the religious straw-man argument, there is considerable amounts of medical proof that supports abortion is killing a living being. Most likely those who support abortion are doing it for personal opinion moreso than facts, as evidenced by the anti-life posts here.
Well, first off, an abortion is killing and expelling organic tissue. Whether or not that tissue comprises an actual human being that does have rights, or not, is open to personal interpertation… therefore, those who are pro-life are doing it more for personal opinion than based on facts as well.
So Ken, you haven’t answered, so I guess you DO admire the 09/11 hi-jackers for following their beliefs?
Anti-life? Nice rhetoric. Are you Darkseid?
Yeah, I always find it refreshing when someone doesn’t have strength to stand up for his convictions!
I’m sure Hitler was only standing up to his convinctions either.
I’d find it more freshing when somebody stands up to their convictions, but then atleast has the balls to admit they were wrong.
Hmm, changed thoughts mid-stream apparently.
First sentence in my post about Hitler should have “as well” at the end, not “either”.
Slick wrote: While Jim in Iowa believes that we should err on the side of life, our legal system is still based on the philosophy of “Innocent until proven guilty”. The accused always has the benefit of the doubt. No Exceptions.
Once again you are guilty of using a false analogy. Yes, if you are accused of a crime, you are assumed innocent until proven guilty. But that is not how things work in real life. If you are driving down the road and see what might be the body of a child in the road, what should you do? Just run over it in hopes that it is not a child? If you saw it in time and could have stopped but did not, you would be guilty of manslaughter if you killed the child.
Jim in Iowa
Bladestar, I didn’t answer because it was an ignorant question?
Their methods for showing their believes were wrong.
Slick wrote:
“…our legal system is still based on the philosophy of “Innocent until proven guilty”. The accused always has the benefit of the doubt. No Exceptions.”
Well, if you’re talking about the candidates running for president this election (and their VP picks), you sure couldn’t tell that based on some of the posts I’ve seen here.
No politician is innocent. Since we are not in court, the burden of proof is on them, not us. They must show they are able to run the country well enough for us to vote for our candidate.
PAD wrote: Right, because asking Dukakis about his wife getting raped was totally fair.
So you admit it *was* an unfair question? 😉
Jim in Iowa
The only ignorance is you dodging the question, oh he-who-worships-those-who-exercise-their-beliefs.
THey did what their beliefs called for. Those were the methods they believed they needed to follow. You’re losing this one VERY badly…
Jim, there are no unfair questions when dealing with someone that holds as much power as the president.
Jim, there are no unfair questions when dealing with someone that holds as much power as the president.
So are there any unfair questions for someone who just wants to hold as much power as the president? Just curious.
Jim in Iowa
Jim:
>>Jim, there are no unfair questions when dealing with someone that holds as much power as the president.
>So are there any unfair questions for someone who just wants to hold as much power as the president? Just curious.
Not if he expects me to consider giving him my vote to give him the position he seeks. 😉
Any question pertaining to office, policy or decision-making and how this process is done is fair game in my mind.
How does my sarcastic remark about Kerry’s stance on abortion:
Yeah, I always find it refreshing when someone doesn’t have strength to stand up for his convictions!
That is what I look for in my political leaders, someone who says he believes in something but does nothing about it.
It shows real moral fortitude!
Equate to me being:
he-who-worships-those-who-exercise-their-beliefs.
???
It doesn’t, except maybe in the world of Bigotstar, where logic tells him that circles are squares and that 4+4= eggs.
I want a leader that will stand up for what he believes in. That does not mean that he goes to extremes like flying a plane into a building or bombing abortion clinics. The people who do that are extremist and crazy, not leaders.
And a leader leads ALL people, not just those who share his religious beliefs.
Exactly Karen.
And Ken, you’ve said all along your admiration and worship for those who follow their beliefs and force them on others.
I’m not a bigot, you are. I allow others to make their own choices. YOu want an abortion, fine. You don’t fine.
Actually, doesn’t someone willing to die for their beliefs the ultimate vessel of their god?
I must have missed it, where did I say that I worship anyone.
And your last little sentence only makes sense in your world.
So am I understanding you right, Karen, to you a good leader is someone that is a hypocrite?
Also, B-star, where did I say that forcing your beliefs on others is what I am advocating. Trying to change laws in a way that you think is for the better is not forcing your beliefs. As leaders, it is their obligation.
“A woman doesn’t want an abortion the way she wants an ice-cream cone, or a Porsche. A woman wants an abortion the way an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”
— Frederica Mathews
Ken,
Main Entry: hyp
If you aren’t willing to die for your beliefs, obviously you don’t believe in them very much.
Taking away rights is NOT the obligation of any politician.