1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 I'm stating the whole lesser of two evils in the sense that if we had a really pro-choice candidate who wants to have free abortions for anyone and a candidate who only advocates abortion in the case of emergency, rape, or incest, it would be more acceptable to vote for the latter as it would actually be a step in the right direction from our abortion on demand world to outlawing abortion (except in cases where the double effect occurs, but that's a topic for another day and another thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 [quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jun 9 2004, 01:36 AM'] I'm stating the whole lesser of two evils in the sense that if we had a really pro-choice candidate who wants to have free abortions for anyone and a candidate who only advocates abortion in the case of emergency, rape, or incest, it would be more acceptable to vote for the latter as it would actually be a step in the right direction from our abortion on demand world to outlawing abortion (except in cases where the double effect occurs, but that's a topic for another day and another thread). [/quote] I don't think that double effect ever takes place with abortion. I can think of one time (maybe two) where it's okay, but neither are abortion cases, even though they look that way at first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 I don't see a true pro life choice for pres this fall. I am not, and never will, vote for Bush. He does lip service to get votes and does little acting. And his campagin promises were not keep. Note that not voting for Bush doesn't mean I am voting for Kerry. Chrysologus, I asked my priest about it in confession and he told me it would not be a sin to support the man who best reflects the Church. This year it is a toss up, largy, because neither is real good at it. And to the pham member who said something about GOP taking on education, do you live with teachers? LOL! Go to a school and ask the teachers opions of NCLB. Lots of goals, lots of bars, nada cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 [quote name='Iacobus' date='Jun 9 2004, 01:51 AM'] I don't see a true pro life choice for pres this fall. I am not, and never will, vote for Bush. He does lip service to get votes and does little acting. And his campagin promises were not keep. Note that not voting for Bush doesn't mean I am voting for Kerry. [/quote] Iacobus, what if that vote means Kerry wins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 In IL? Bush wrote IL off as a Kerry state. And I cannot vote for Bush in good faith. I don't think I can for Kerry. But I can, and should, vote for the best man on the ticket. If a vote for a better man compered to a lesser evil is bad, I am lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 That's a good point. If you don't mind, since I'm a voter, what are some of the reasons I should consider for not voting Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 In my view he is not really pro life. He does a lot of talking but fails to act. But than again I am compereing him to Clinton who, regradless of if they were good or not, got things done. He really hurt education with NCLB. Both of my parents are teachers. They, along with all of their coworkers are distraught by NCLB. It places huge emphasis on tests and levels. All a test tells someone is how good of a test taker you are. They don't 100% reflect the studnet. Plus NCLB provides almost no money and Bush froze much of the funds after 9/11. Plus one of his cronies called the teacher union a terrorist group for being too vocal about NCLB. Whoa! That was nice. He has zero credabilty in teh UN now. Today the UN voted 15-0 for the US-UK bail out in Iraq. One year ago Bush was sure we could "go it alone" and we didn't need the UN. Now he is crawling to the UN asking for help. We need a real force in the UN to get things done and the US won't have it in Bush. Powell is upset and rumored not to be returning if Bush is re-elected because he felt stood up at the UN last year, among other things. SSE are flawed. I can explain why if you want. I want a pres who can deal with other nations to achive lasting goals. I want a pres who isn't romantic about war. I want a pres who seeks and end to killing in the womb, prison, war, and assisted sucide. Bush is not the man for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 A lot of this might depend on what state you are in, whether abstaining from a vote could help Kerry or not, because of the Electoral College. In a battleground state, this might be possible. But in an overwhelmingly Republican state or Democrat state, it might not be an issue. I don't know, the third party/no-vote is a bit confusing. Each side blames you for "helping" the other side! Look at how much the Democrats squeal like angry piglets when you just say the word "Nader." I would love to vote for Joe Schriner. (www.voteforjoe.com) But I don't know if my state (Washington) is a battleground state or not. It appears to be the case right now, though it goes Democrat almost always. (Even for DUKAKIS.... LOL) If it's battleground I will vote for Bush. Actually I told my boyfriend I've been tempted to vote for Bush simply just to be an antagonist and make my friends mad, because of the grief they gave me for voting for him in 2000. (I'm not talking about you, Iacobus ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 [quote name='Iacobus' date='Jun 9 2004, 02:25 AM'] He has zero credabilty in teh UN now. Today the UN voted 15-0 for the US-UK bail out in Iraq. One year ago Bush was sure we could "go it alone" and we didn't need the UN. Now he is crawling to the UN asking for help. We need a real force in the UN to get things done and the US won't have it in Bush. [/quote] LoL, just so you know that's one of the things I like about Bush. Get me into polititcs and I'll go one for a while. I'll spare you for now. J/K. But honestly I think the UN is outdated in many ways and if any of the founding fathers were alive, they would probably think that we were crazy for putting them before other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 [quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Jun 9 2004, 02:37 AM'] A lot of this might depend on what state you are in, whether abstaining from a vote could help Kerry or not, because of the Electoral College. In a battleground state, this might be possible. But in an overwhelmingly Republican state or Democrat state, it might not be an issue. I don't know, the third party/no-vote is a bit confusing. Each side blames you for "helping" the other side! Look at how much the Democrats squeal like angry piglets when you just say the word "Nader." I would love to vote for Joe Schriner. (www.voteforjoe.com) But I don't know if my state (Washington) is a battleground state or not. It appears to be the case right now, though it goes Democrat almost always. (Even for DUKAKIS.... LOL) If it's battleground I will vote for Bush. Actually I told my boyfriend I've been tempted to vote for Bush simply just to be an antagonist and make my friends mad, because of the grief they gave me for voting for him in 2000. (I'm not talking about you, Iacobus ) [/quote] LOL, I didn't give you grief. I guess I will have to start to work harder on that. LOL! Jk. I like Joe, he is an option for me. But his tax views are a little, lol, off the wall. But well Congress wouldn't approve them if he, by some stroke, won. So I feel safe voting for him. Hehe. And 2ndly when you say Nader around me I don't squeal. I cry. LOL! jk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jun 9 2004, 02:53 AM'] LoL, just so you know that's one of the things I like about Bush. Get me into polititcs and I'll go one for a while. I'll spare you for now. J/K. But honestly I think the UN is outdated in many ways and if any of the founding fathers were alive, they would probably think that we were crazy for putting them before other things. [/quote] Washington would dislike it. He didn't like two things *see farewell address (which isn't a speech but just a letter, lol)* 1) Poltical Parties. He thought he hurt the US as a whole 2) Entangling allanices. US should stay at home In my view the UN is still kinda needed. They have many policies that are less than likable but we need an international fourm and to fight and win a gobal war on terror, you need gobal help. My view, the UN is needed for the US to do much. Unilartalism doesn't help us or anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 [quote name='Iacobus' date='Jun 9 2004, 01:25 AM'] Plus one of his cronies called the teacher union a terrorist group for being too vocal about NCLB. Whoa! That was nice. [/quote] is there a source for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 [quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Jun 9 2004, 01:37 AM'] Actually I told my boyfriend I've been tempted to vote for Bush simply just to be an antagonist and make my friends mad, because of the grief they gave me for voting for him in 2000. [/quote] :crackup: i say go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 [quote name='littleflower' date='JMJ+Jun 9 2004, 03:14 AM'] is there a source for that? [/quote] [url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-02-24-paige_x.htm"]Paige: Teachers union 'terrorist' group[/url] [font="Courier"]Education Secretary Rod Paige says he chose poor words in calling the nation's largest teachers union a "terrorist organization," but he stands by his claim that the group uses "obstructionist scare tactics" in its fight over the nation's education law.[/font] -- AP 2/24/01 [font="Courier"]i am no fan of the Teacher's Union though "...when John Kerry told the union members, "I believe we need to offer teachers more pay," he got a big hand. But then he added, "And we must ask more in return. That's the bargain." The response? Dead silence. A revealing silence. It said more about this teachers union than any press release could."[/font] [url="http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040519-095423-8380r.htm"]click this[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 thanks LD i read that huge link and i just started laughing... it must be late for me oh well i need a laugh right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now