[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[David L. Willson]

On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 14:44 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> David L. Willson wrote:
> 
> > I'm counting.  This is the N'th time that someone has accused GWB of
> > lying us into this war, and AFAIK there is no proof.  Last several times
> > I accused anyone of lying, I had proof.  Last time we, as a nation,
> > called our President a liar, we had plenty of evidence, which he lied
> > about, until we came up with a girl's dress with his semen on it.  Is
> > there a blue dress here, or is it still possible that the things GWB has
> > said are true?
> 
> I'm not taking sides on this one, but there has been PLENTY of testimony 
> to Congress that the decision-makers had information that showed Iraq 
> was NOT the source of "terrorism" long before 9/11 and since.
> 
> If it's a "War on Terror", they're in the wrong country, and we all know 
> it.  Reaching into Afghanistan (just a place for terrorist to hide) is 
> just fighting the symptom.
> 
> The terrorists live in other countries.  Most were/are citizens of Saudi 
> Arabia, which for various reasons we'd never go to war with, nor demand 
> anything of.
> 
> Bush's family fortune and the fortunes of others around him, flow from 
> Saudi oil.  Plain and simple.  I've worked in the oil industry, and 
> there's no such thing as a rich "Texas" oil man with oil only from 
> Texas.  That's horse-shit.  Follow the money.
> 
> Ironically, Bush Jr's personal money didn't come from oil -- his company 
> he ran went bust.  His money was in brokering the Houston Astros stadium 
> deal, which netted him his first millions, and he was not required to 
> invest to profit.  The investors were happy, and he got the skim.  A 
> stadium on taxpayer dollars, about as "Democratic/Liberal" as one could 
> get, really.  In the "party line" view of the world.  Funny, really. 
> But he made Republicans in Texas rich, not Democrats, so... which side 
> is he on?  Then he fell in with the neo-cons, most of which dodged 
> Vietnam just as hard as the Dems they flame-broil for doing so.
> 
> If voting is about finding character, NONE of the candidates for many 
> years has had much.  The only consistent theme is a very "American" one 
> for all of the canidates, "Playing to win."  They're all sociopaths in 
> this desire to win at all costs.
> 
> The most effective leaders in world history were *usually* those forced 
> into power who didn't want it.  By definition, this means that anyone 
> willingly running for the Presidency, probably isn't who you want to 
> follow, ever.
> 
> > Is "flag-burning" a stupid issue to a man who has risked his life to
> > defend what the flag represents.  Is the definition of "human life" a
> > stupid issue to an infertile couple?  How about a couple struggling to
> > have children?  How about a 40 year old man who has loved his life, and
> 
> As a member of an "infertile couple" I'm insulted that you think you 
> know what is important to me.  Please feel free to ask if you'd like to 
> really know what I think of activist groups using my perfectly natural 
> (infertility happens in nature) situation as a political crutch to gain 
> empathy for their causes sometime.  After we cover that, you can ask 
> what I think of the topics themselves.

Obviously, you don't like your example being used as a defense for the
value of unborn life.  Are you in the majority, within your class, or do
you know?  There are women that are happy with their abortions, but they
aren't in the majority, so it would be inappropriate for one of them to
speak on behalf of the class.

> But trust me, most infertile couples don't need/want radical groups out 
>   distracting politicians and the public with religious debates, and we 
> find it appalling that they do it "in our name"... like we're not here, 
> with our own opinions.  Feel free to stop using me to make points in 
> your arguments about YOUR religious beliefs.   :-)

Oops, there's the answer to my question, most infertile couples don't
want to be used as fodder in this argument.  I'm not sure how an
interested party is fodder, but let's stipulate the point for now...
Since I've stipulated your point, please listen to mine.  As a
Christian, I am getting annoyed with secularists assuming that pro-life
is/must be a religious issue, because most of the people fighting the
battle are God-worshipers of one sort or another.  The issue itself is
human, not religious, and I kept it in that context.  I didn't bring up
religion in this context, I brought up "human rights".  You brought up
religion, ~and~ clipped enough of my argument, that you changed it
fundamentally.  Since we will for the moment assume that you speak for
your class, I'll drop your class from the group of three or four
post-birth humans that I am seeking to represent.  I'll keep the groups
that I'm personally speaking for, and I'll reiterate the basic question.
"Why are human rights conferred at birth?  Do people conceive dog babies
that turn human when they come out?"  The second question seems
ridiculous, because it is, but it is also perfectly illustrative.

This is, in my mind, not a political distraction, but one of the primary
reasons for the existence of government, to establish a system whereby
predatory behavior is discouraged by the community in some structured
way.  No one is allowed to take my life or property, without my having
done something to deserve it, in general.  Is production and profit to
be prioritized before principle?  Couldn't we be more profitable as a
country by reducing or eliminating other indigent classes, not just the
unborn?  There are a good number of people with no regard for the
homeless and hungry, perhaps we could start a Soylent Green initiative.
Hey, that reminds me of embryonic stem-cell testing.  Someone wiser than
I am will have to explain the significant difference to me.