A vote for Bush is a vote for intolerance
 

I dont support Kerry especially, he strikes me as a glad handed political opportunist, a natural conservative, with no moral values... but at least he is a popularist, and this will prevent him from doing certain things.

A lot of people think that by attacking Iraq and Afghanistan Bush has made America and the world safer - personally I dont, but that is a belief some people have. But lets talk about what we know Bush believes.

Bush wants to make abortion illegal, that is a factual statement - right now he is slowly working towards a position when he can do this.

Bush wants to deny gay people the same civil rights that straight people have - this is clearly a true statement, we know that Bush does not want gay people to be allowed to marry - he clearly see's gay's as second class citizens who are either incapable or deserving of the same recognition as straight people.

Bush believes in killing - he wants to extend the death penalty, he believes that it is right to tell our people "thou shalt not kill" - and those who do,,, well, kill them...

Bush is a president who has and will attack women's rights, who will legislate deliberately to discriminate against homosexuals, who has led America into a terribly destructive war with Iraq with no end in sight... how can it even be possible for the Republican Party to nominate him as their candidate?

A vote for Bush is a vote for prejudice, intolerance, small minded and closed minded policies that will exclude and persecute millions of Americans.

Re: A vote for Bush is a vote for intolerance
 

Must you regurgitate the same thread over and over again? Perhaps we need a Tilted Redundancy forum. We could name it "Tilted Tilted Tilted."

i agree with both posts.

I would be very interested in seeing someone refute these points. I can't, because I believe them to be true. I don't see how someone could vote for him because of these things - not to mention the "rich get richer" mentality.

How are these things overlooked by bright people? Do other things matter more? Or do people just agree with them?

I would prefer to see someone answer those questions, or respond to the original post. That would be far more useful in creating dialogue and understanding than Seretogis's post.

Seretogis, that is a classic "i don't want to talk about it" response. Do you have anything to actually offer? If not, why post here?

Before you spew self-righteous bullshit, use the search function. Each "point" of SF's has been debated to death in at least three other threads. If someone has no intention of examining a different angle on an issue that has been the subject of hundreds of posts already, it is of no use to me or this board. The last thing that this board needs is more carbon-copy "abortion = capital punishment" or "Republicans bad! Democrats good!" threads which are turning Tilted Politics into a cesspool.

So when I casually jump into the board to read something, I should use the search function first?

Why?

Doesn't it make sense that if you think it is redundant, you don't respond? Is there any better way to get that point across than ignoring the post?

I'm also unclear on how my post is 'self righteous'. Or 'spew'ing. I'm not sure how to write any more clearly or calmly. Is there a reason you are so aggressively responding? Your words seem designed to push buttons.

I'm just suggesting that if you (or anyone) doesn't have anything to add, don't post. Isn't that the general rule of TFP?

I agree with SF, and i think seretogis needs to relax. Lest he spew more of his own self-righteousness.
PM a mod if you have problems. Don't hijack up the thread by interjecting irrelevant commentary.
To follow your lead, maybe we could just confine all of the threads you create to a "Libertarian" board separate from the rest of politics.

I say fuck a woman's right to choice, I prefer a humans right to life. Bush doesn't treat homosexuals as second class citizens. He calls to respect and treat them with dignity, and neither he nor I have to agree with them. How does Bush doing the will of his constituents and curbing judicial activism equal discrimination? Civil Unions will grant gays the same rights as straight people, and he is not opposed to that. 50%+/- don't agree with abortion, even more in the range of 60%+ aren't down with homosexual marriage.

P.S. If pro-life = "anti-choice" then pro-choice = pro-abortion and death.

Re: Re: A vote for Bush is a vote for intolerance
 

In my opinion, it isnt the same as other things I have posted - because I am trying to discus, specifically, Bush's beliefs, his moral world - this is a world I judge to be anti-woman, anti-gay, and violent - I think it is a sane conversation to ask people "do you want to vote for a man who discriminates against gays, wants to outlaw abortion, and has blood on his hands"

The bush admin just recently removed restrictions barring the discrimination against homosexual federal employees.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/844/4698371.html
You don't have to agree with them, and apparently you don't have to treat them like human beings either. Respect and dignity indeed.

Doing the will of your constituents becomes an act of intolerace if your constituents are intolerant. He is opposed to civil unions, just read his proposed constitutional amendment. It bans gays from getting married and recieving any of the benefits that go along with marriage, i.e. civil unions.

The majority of americans thought saddam and obl were friends. That's how well informed the decisions and opinions of the majority of american citizens are. If you want them deciding public policy, well, you deserve what you get. Just remember, there was a time when a constitutional amendment barring women's suffrage would've passed with majority support, as would one endorsing segregation and slavery.

And woman's rights and black right were systematically passed when politically convienent. Hmmmm interesting.

Here is a mindjob. I'd say that atleast a third of the people that are voting for Bush are "intolerant". They are not pro choice, and are against gay marrage. A lot of those same people also support the death penalty.

A lot of people do like Bush, and his politics. I'm not one of them, however, quit trolling on tilted politics! We've seen this same thread atleast 3 times. You did the same thing with Blair. We get the picture.

They were helped along by your sworn enemy, the "activist judge".

thats a pretty extreme view on things. what if a woman was raped, or a teenager got pregnant, would they be required to carry the baby to full term and look after it?
Why does the views of a population have to influence the progression of society either? i imagine in the 50's there was a large chunk of the population opposed to giving black people rights, but it doesn't mean that it was wrong.
the point is that the world is constantly evolving, and trying to resist that is futile. it's become a way of life that gay people are creating relationships that are easily classed as marriages, and have done for many years. why does the fact that they are of the same sex automatically prevent them from being married?

My mother would have died if she hadnt had an abortion (at least that's what the doctor told her) about 20 years ago, so... I dont know if how I feel comes in part from a personal place

Also, I am not trying to shift the focus of my own thread... but a fetus is not a life, that is a fact, it cannot survive on its own therefore it is not a life - that is the judgement, something that could live on its own is a life, a ball of cells, a potential life, that is still a part of a woman, that is not a life - and it is a woman's choice what she does with her own body, I cannot myself see any other moral possibility of belief.

To allow straight people to marry but not gays is discrimination. Simple fact, there cant be a debate, there is nothing to debate... why straight people dont want gays to marry is just beyond me, I genuinely cant understand, why would ANYONE care is too gay people want to get married or not, how does it effect your life?

As for the death penalty, as a deterent it doesnt work, we understand this - I can see that there are certain arguments for it, and mostly they come from a place of rage or disgust, I can understand the logic of believing a child killer, for example, should be erased, should cease to exist - but the question surely is do we let our anger rule the policies of our state?

Justice makes mistakes, and until it doesnt, I cant see how the death penalty can be used, or even considered for use.

And, you know, I really do get fed up of people saying "oh this is spam, this is trolling" rather than addressing the question... cos you know, if this isnt a great thread, everyone can just let it fall away from the front page and die, fine... if you dont see anything valid here to talk about you dont have to... I feel there is, I feel I am saying something which isnt the same as what I have said before, I am trying to engage a debate... if you dont want to take part Im not trying to make you, but what is the point in just coming in here to say I am being a troll... if you really think I am then ask one of the moderators to remove it, and if they feel that this shouldnt be here, fine, I'll accept that.

Seems to me, that if someone is pro-life, they should follow thier heart and never have an abortion. If however, someone is of a diffrent mindset, they too should be allowed to follow a choice they are comfortable with, as it does no damage to the pro-lifer.
My problem with the administrations descisions is simply that they are taking choices from the people, and forcing religious doctrine of us all. I am not a christian, by the churchs' reconing, and have no desire to be converted,especially by the government.
These moves are literally FORCING millions of American citizens to follow the laws of a religion, which they do not believe in.

But the argument is that the choice in question does do damage to another party. You know who/what. That's why the choice should be disallowed.

Anyone who claims that those against legal abortion is always or even often acting out of some bigoted kind of intolerance isn't making an attempt in good faith to understand the viewpoint of the opposition. Intolerance ain't the cause.

Exactly Fool Them All. The only intolerance i see here is coming from Strange Famous and his assertion that anyone with differing viewpoints then his are mysoginistic homophobes.

Strange Famous, you're paraphrasing 5 or 6 viewpoints and offering your little one-liners to counter them, when each could be debated for 5 or 6 hours. I'm sure nobody would change your mind on any one of them, but one thing i'm certain of, none of them are motivated by "intolerance."

That's why the life of this thread has only one of two possibilities:

a. the left bashing bush and patting each other on the back, or
b. the right jumping in and the thread going on 5 or 6 different tangents challenging each one of your simplistic takes on a political belief.

.

As i see it...this situation effects only the mother, "Her" unborn child, fetus, or embryo, and the immediate family involved. I fail to see what business it is of any outside entity, as to the life choices of those involved.
If my sister has an abortion today, What right do you have to tell her she is wrong. And why should you care? Please don't give me the" God says so" line as it is totally irrelevant to the "legal" aspects of this situation.
This entire issue revolves around a christian belief in the quickening of an embryo, and the reach for power by a fundementally religious administration.I cannot, and will not be the judge of the laws of the church, but it should not be allowed to hold me to its laws if I am not of the faith.
If I lived in Sauidi Arabia, I would not be able to tolerate the religious laws of state and neither would you, yet my own government feels the need to ignore its own constitution, and blur the seperation our forefathers attempted to create.
It is the right of every American to practice, and believe the religion of thier choice. It is not rhe right of the government to issue one to its people.

I swear liberals are nothing but a bunch of empty headed pussies. whah!!!!! I have to take responsibility for my own choices! It's not fair! Life has intrinsic value in and of itself, so the abortion question should be answered. Are you telling me that a child has no value just because it's origins are questionable?
Hell no, I'm not tolerent, I don't have to be. Welcome to America! There isn't anyone I wouldn't help, feed, clothe or house to the best of my ability, but I don't have to like how they are living. America doesn't have a culture, we have a constitution. If it doesn't fall into what the constitution says, then it shouldn't be going on. If you don't like it, start your own damn country, but please quit screwing up mine!!

Interseting....Do you regularly break into name calling, and assumtive judgement in your conversations? I was merely attempting to give my perspective on a very difficult issue and you decided to call me a pussy.
Most people are capable of debate without acting like a child, perhaps you may try it at some time. Perhaps not, honestly, who cares.

This is what we disagree on: whether the unborn child is worthy of the same protection that, say, a one-year-old is. If so, then it certainly is the government's business, just like child abuse is the government's business, even though it only affects the mother, the child, and the immediate family.

And I've never used Christian dogma when talking about criminalizing abortion. Kindly take down that strawperson.

But to get back to the point of the post: If you intended to show that pro-lifers are inherently intolerant, you failed.

uhh...da mean man say mean things to me.... :(
Learn to spell! At least you finally got the point when you got to who cares. Do what you want, and who cares about the rest. Just quit trying to make me a liberal, because I sure am not trying to make you into anything. Tolerance is just another word for fascism.

Obviously a waste of time here....sorry to interupt your banter with an attempt at conversation.


Oh and by the way....may want to check your own spelling, before you attempt to ridicule another.

tolerant...at least mine was an obvious typo.

Quite doubleplus good, my comrade.


Abortion aside, how is bush tolerant of homosexuality? His admin is denying federally employed homosexuals protection from discrimination. How is that tolerant? How is that not "a step backward" as seretogis likes to say?

There are plenty of reasons to not vote for Bush other than gay marriage and abortion. I understand that they are important to some people, but they are really just wedge issues that distract you from the real problems in this country.

WTF? Where did you come up with this?

Wow, so protecting the rights of other people to live is intolerant now.

If you were walking down the street and saw a man killing a small child, PLEASE tell me you couldnt just say it doesnt involve you and walk away. PLEASE tell me you wouldnt claim to be "tolerant" and allow him to do what he chose because it was his decision.

You may argue that it is different, but not in our eyes. Say what you will about a womans body and whatnot but in my opinion that doesnt matter. In exception of rape or risk of death to the mother abortion should be illegal.

So what you're saying is if you were walking down the street and you saw someone about to kill a child, you'd save the child unless it was the product of rape? I understand what you're saying, but please be consistent. If a child is inherently owed the chance to be born than don't qualify it based on the circumstances of conception.

Um... ok. where to begin. First of all, Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion. I should know because I'm Pro-Choice, but would never, ever have an abortion. Pro Choice means agreeing with women having a choice. And Pro Life isn't anti choice either, you can choose Pro Life, can't you? So it's a choice.

By saying, "Fuck women's right to choice." I think it shows lack of respect for those who are pro choice. And for women all together. I'm going to assume you are not a woman. I thought this comment was rude and I was offended by it.

As far as the Gay Marriage thingee... I don't really know what side of the fence I sit on. Being bisexual, I think I might have some kind of skewed point, but I might not. I personally would never marry another woman. But I also don't think it's any of my business if they want to marry each other. If what they are doing is "morally wrong" then let God deal with them.

You've got me there. No sir, I don't like it.

But that's not enough to change my vote.

I have nothing to add to the conversation, as what I think has already been stated and much more eloquently than I ever could.

I'd just like to add that I'm Pro-Death.

I think everyone should try "death" at least once. ;)

How about those lives of the 600 American lives that have been wasted because Bush had a hardon for Saddam. Fucker sends troops in without body armor! What a bastard.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

This is rediculous, unacceptable, and I'm truly shocked to see it got to this level.

The posts that AREN'T flames, DON'T have out-right name-calling, blatant trolling, are nasty, or TOTALLY against forum AND site rules can all be counted on one hand.

To those who actually stayed on topic, and obeyed the rules, I sincerely thank you, and I apologize for the unruly behavior of the others.

Every member in this thread who violated the rules is receiving a PM detailing what they did, and why they should know better. Do not think this sort of thing goes unnoticed, or we turn our heads and look away.

-analog.