What I would really like to know, Guv'nor, is what's your position on the subject of porm

(Reply to this) (Thread)

wow, clever

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Merciful $DEITY.

Still, if they spelled it right, it wouldn't get past spam filters...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I have only two different answers.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

The abortion answer is a slippery one, and I'm wrestling with it myself. If you go by when a state of the art medical facility can keep a fetus alive, that is getting shorter all the time. How about going by when a state of the art facility can give a decent quality of life? Or adjusting for less competent health care? At what age is a child really viable? For most of us it was our late teens to early twenties, and I'm not being entirely facitious about that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Yeah.

For me, there are two basic principles involved:
1) The woman has the absolute right to terminate her association with the fetus at any time.
2) She does not have the right to explicitly kill it, but if exercising the first right results unavoidably in the fetus's death, that is insufficient grounds to stop her from doing so.

To me, biological viability is the dividing line between fetus and baby. If it can survive on its own (in a purely biological sense, NOT economic, or even in the sense that it needs care from others, as long as that care does not require connecting its systems to those of another person directly), then it is a separate person and rates all of the protections due such a person. Until it has demonstrated such viability, however, it's not a person.

This means that abortion procedures should be designed to result in a living baby if the possibility exists. That's not to say that that should be done with no consideration for the life or health of the woman, and doctors, not politicians, should have the final say in the matter. If no possibility exists of the fetus beginning a biologically independent life, however, then it's purely the woman's choice, and nobody else is entitled to an opinion.

As medical science advances, and younger and younger fetuses are brought to term and survive, this dividing line will necessarily move. I have no problems with that, as it does not affect the woman's rights.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

wow. we have ALL the same answers. except i would have answered marajuana: yes, gleefully. interestingly, i came to the realization recently that for all my gay-lovin', pot-smokin', eat-the-rich attitudes, i turned out to be repubican. who woulda thunk.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I answered the drugs questions not for my own use (I do not use any form of illegal drug), but rather on the basis of whether I believe they should be legalized. I came to the conclusion that stamping out drug use is impossible, for the same reasons that gun bans will never work; since I oppose the latter, consistency demands that I oppose the former as well. I do so reluctantly, however, because as a paramedic for 17 years, I saw firsthand the human cost drugs cause.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Why yes on Bush, when you disagree with Bush on every other answer except Iraq?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I disagree with President Bush on most of the issues listed, but I agree with him on more, and the ones where we agree matter more to me than the ones where we disagree. The list appears to be designed, consciously or unconsciously, to highlight those issues where the left end of the political spectrum thinks it can make hay against the President.

I was also one of the people who had the pleasure of electing him and throwing his predecessor, Queen Ann Richards, out of office because she vetoed a concealed carry law in Texas. I believe the Second Amendment is one of the most important in the Bill of Rights, and the left wants to gut it (since they can't outright repeal it); President Bush is the best friend it has.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Hello Jay - I came in on the blizzard of attention your Tron costume has brought and I thought I'd read a bit of other posts to know more then one aspect of your life.

I see in this poll you are saying the war in Iraq was nessisary and I have a question about that.

Do you think that the reasons that Bush gave were valid reasons when they were stated? Do you think the lack of WMD's make the case look weaker now?

Do you think that Bush's personal feelings about another (Saddam) who tried to have his Father assassinated had any impact on his decision making?

Do you feel (As I do) that Saddam was/is an evil bastard who needed to go but that the general (US) public wouldn't support a war to save the Iraqi people from thier dictator?

I will comment here that its interesting to see replys to this meme where the answers arn't religiously motivated; it shows that the non-religious right are alot more reasonable then the firebrands that get alot of press for being SO far out to the right.

Nice work on the costume, by the way!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I believe that the best information available to the US government was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. This was the case for years; one need only look at the statements made by the Clinton Administration and leading Democrats in Congress (including Senator Kerry) in 1998 or so to see that it went on for a long time. Indeed, Saddam's every action seemed designed to convince the word that he had WMDs available for use. Certainly his equipping his troops with chemical protection suits - when it's well-known that the US military has no chemical weapons and is prohibited by law from making or using them - lent credibility to the notion.

We cannot judge the decision to go to war except on the information available at the time the decision was made, just as we cannot judge the actions of a cop by what someone would do knowing information he does not know and cannot acquire in the time available to make a decision. On that basis, the decision to go to war was reasonable, and, IMAO, correct.

The lack of WMDs would make the case weaker were we to make the decision in that knowledge; however, we did not have and could not obtain that knowledge. Note that I do not consider giving the UNSCOM weapons inspectors more time an option, as that would simply have encouraged Saddam to stonewall further.

I don't know whether President Bush's feelings were strong enough to push him over the edge into war. Since I believe the case was strong enough without it, that question holds little interest for me.

I don't think the American public would have supported a war if it were just to save the Iraqi people from Saddam, no matter how noble that cause has proven to be. I do, however, think they would have supported a war to remove a supporter of terrorism from power, which is exactly what Saddam was. Even if he did not support Al-Qaeda - something that is not as cut-and-dried as some would make it out to be - he unquestionably supported terrorism. He harbored the mastermind of the Achiolle Lauro hijacking, and paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000 after the bombing was carried out. I have little doubt that, if he indeed did not support Al-Qaeda, it was not for lack of desire or interest.

In short, even though we may never find WMDs in Iraq (and I, for one, have not given up my beliefs on that score; all it takes is a backhoe and a bunch of prison laborers (which Saddam had in staggering numbers) to hide a production facility), I think the war was sufficiently justified.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)