Kerry has conceded

[jimbo]

Where do you think this instinctual morality come from?

Same place as the platypus of course.


----------------------------------------------
P.S. - I believe in God, just not religious dogma. Brent is arguing that without religion (read christianity) there could be no morals (I think, sorry if I'm mistaken Brent).

Also he insinuated that without the "fear of God"(answering to a higher power) no one would have any reason to be moral. I am simply arguing that morality (and evil as well) may be natural, occur in most higher animals, and that with humans religions can use this fact to construct their own "truths" that make sense to their followers.

Slowpro - I don't believe John Kerry would have been nearly as dangerous as George Bush (I know I can't convince you though). He seems a rational, moderate man, and not one to stubornly pursue policies based on faith, us vs them mentality, and prejudice.

[StormTROOPER]

If John Kerry HAD HIS WAY Saddam would OWN Kuwait and maybe Saudi Arabia, then we would all be driving Chevy Metros or motorcycles instead of VXes. Forget WMDs the main reason to remove that bafoon was LEVERAGE. How can the U.S. be taken SERIOUSLY in it's war on terrorism when one of the MAIN SUPPORTERS of terrorism NEVER ADMITTED DEFEAT and continued to thumb his nose at the U.S. & U.N. The reason the left hates Bush so much is that he's changing the world for the better and they love him cause it gives them a purpose and the chance to relive the 70s, I'm sure Michael Moore is already planning Farenheit part 2.

[BaM*BaM]

above comment......

comedy's malformed twin

[kpaske]

Maverick - Nice post. I believe it is only from a thorough examination of as many viewpoints as possible that we can truly make an educated judgement. It was actually my early religious education (6 years of CCD and 3 years of Catholic high school) that eventually led me away from the Catholic tradition I was first raised in. It amazed me that when I questioned teachings of the bible I was given answers like "God works in mysterious ways" and "you must first have faith in the Lord". These aren't acceptable answers for the scientifically educated mind when there are clearly contradictions between the bible and science.

I consider religion to be merely a teaching tool for the masses. I believe the bible, as well as many religious texts throughout history, has many valuable lessons, which are open to interpretation. You don't need to believe every word, literally, in order to gain from the wisdom of many generations.

Please tell me how morality can exist without religion? If you do not believe in a higher power, why be moral?

I'll tell you how. Buddhism. As I eluded to in an earlier post, Buddhism isn't really a religion, but rather a philosophy. Buddha is paid respect as a human being who gained enlightenment beyond any other human, but should not be considered a "God". He taught human beings about morality, without even a mention of a "higher power" or a "creator". Buddhists follow a similar set of principles, or "precepts" that exist in every religion, such as the Christian's "10 Commandments".

Why be moral? Because it benefits mankind. Duh. It's one of the factors that has allowed human beings as a species to thrive far beyond other animals. That and opposable thumbs, of course.

And yes, I went there. We truly are just another animal. Biologically, we just happen to be the most well adapted, mentally and physically. Our brains are the most developed, and our bodies have a couple of simple advantages. But I don't see why (outside of the fact that the "bible says so") such a strong distinction must be made between us and the other creatures on this planet.

And lets not forget, the bible was written by humans, and translated through several languages over the course of over 2000 years. It is a mistake not to recognize that it has been reinterpretted over and over again, and likely bears little resemblance to the original text.

There was an old joke that goes something like this. A priest goes to work at the Vatican after many years of faithful service. One day he begins studying some of the old original texts from which the bible was written. One day he's heard sobbing from the Vatican library so another priest goes to ask him what's wrong. He looks up from his tears and proclaims, "it says CELEBRATE, not CELEBATE"!!

Instinctive morality? Perhaps to some extent our basic instincts govern our morality. We have many of the same instincts as animals (to eat, to reproduce, to fight, to communicate), but much of our behavior is learned. We have learned to repress some of our instincts because of things we've been taught. Animals too, particularly other higher, communal species, exercise restraint due to learned behavior. Does a dog not have some thoughts about consequences when he wants to jump up on the table and eat the piece of steak, but opts not to because he knows his owner will become very upset with him? His instinct makes him drool and stare at the delicious meal, but if he's been trained well enough, he won't jump for it, even in the absense of authority. So my question is, are we truly moral, or have we just been taught to avoid undesirable consequences? Certainly the fear of ETERNAL LIFE IN HELL wouldn't affect our behavior, would it?

By the way SlowPro - sometimes those old "crazy" guys really have some interesting stories to tell. He sounds like a guy we could learn a thing or two from.

Kerry vs. Bush - wow, back to the original topic again? I think whoever gets into office is potentially dangerous, just in different ways. Bush certainly hasn't chosen the safest, easiest path for our nation. But the safe, easy answer isn't always the right one. Sometimes you need to be proactive when you are the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world. Kerry may have chosen to get us out of Iraq as quickly as possible, but I believe that given the state of the world right now, that would be a very, very bad move. The most dangerous thing about Kerry though, is nobody knows what the heck he would have done. He's way too inconsistant, and I think the nation recognized this when the majority voted for Bush. At least with Bush, we know what to expect, and we know he won't ever back to down from terrorists.

Ok, I've said way more than my two cents. Time to go do something productive.

[Ldub]

Is the horse dead yet? I'll try & rember to ck. back in another 14-15 pages.

Ldub

[Moncha]

Will this do?

[Ldub]

THATT'L DO! Ldub

[jimbo]

I concede.

Four more years, yeeeeeeyyyy!!!!!!
(I can't wait to see what's next)

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by jimbo

Slowpro - I don't believe John Kerry would have been nearly as dangerous as George Bush (I know I can't convince you though). He seems a rational, moderate man, and not one to stubornly pursue policies based on faith, us vs them mentality, and prejudice.

It doesn't really matter - I didn’t vote for either one of those buffoons! No, I shouldn’t say that. Here’s the deal: personality-wise, I like your man Kerry as much as I like Bush. I get the feeling it would be easier to talk to Bush than Kerry. Bush seems like he would at least try to have a conversation with a peon like me - even if he didn't need my vote, whereas Kerry appears to be the stuck-up type who would look down his nose and not even speak to a peon like me if he didn’t need my vote. But the bottom line is they’re both rich, Ivy League frat boys, so it’s not like either one of them could really relate to me or my little insignificant life. So - from a personality standpoint it’s really a wash.

From a political standpoint, however, there is a slight difference. It's not so much a difference in the men as it is the effect political parties have. I don’t exactly like what either major party is doing. But one has more of a negative effect on my life than the other. The current administration is running roughshod all over my 4th amendment rights with all this homeland security crap. That bothers me when I think about it but, in all honesty, it doesn’t have much effect on my day-to-day existence. The Democratic party, however, is constantly getting in the way of one of my unalienable Rights - the pursuit of Happiness. Democratic lawmakers are relentless in their efforts to kill my joy.

I’m sure Kerry IS a rational, moderate man - but in the last couple election cycles, the party he’s associated with only gets my vote at lower levels of government. Democrats have simply been doing far too much damage to my hobbies to get my vote at the national level.

Having said that though, I do realize there should be more to the decision than my pursuit of Happiness. So - on to the bigger picture! I do vote for Dems at the local and state level. They actually brought my “batting average” up this time. All the Dems I voted for won as opposed to only two Republicans and ZERO Libertarians. So you see I do spread my vote around and you actually CAN convince me to vote for your party’s man (or woman) in the next national election. All you have to do is show me that the Democratic Party isn’t moving the country toward socialism. Just pick any plank on their platform - the economy, health care, education, the environment, military operations - pick anything and show me where they favor a solution that doesn’t conflict with the basic tenets this great country was founded upon and our Constitution - the tenth amendment in particular - as opposed to favoring a bureaucratic, centralized/socialist-government type solution.

Have at it. I think we can get 20 pages out of this thread...

[SlowPro48]

Originally posted by jimbo
I concede.

Hell, I tried to throw in the towel way back at page 10 but I guess you guys didn't like my plan. Now I'm feeling like your man Kerry. "Because I have a PLAN"

it was a damn fine plan too....

[tomdietrying]

Plan? Plan? What plan? Bush don't need no stinkin plan.
Peace.
Tom

[jimbo]

Well ... ok if you guys want to talk a little more ...

( I know - shut up already! But I'm bored.)

After reading the last couple posts I was thinking about why I actually liked Kerry and although it is throughly academic at this point to discuss these things, it seems that being throughly academic is what this thread has become all about.

I don't think Kerry was a flipflopper (and don't think changing your position is always bad anyways). The Bush administration is forever saying one thing then another, sometimes even on the same day. I watch John Stewart everynight and he spent a couple years teasing the Bushies by showing one piece of video, then another where they were saying two opposite things. We're safer - we're not safer, Catching Osama is not really important - catching Osama is very important, We're positive Iraq has nuclear weapons - we never said Iraq had nucear weapons etc.

I went through most of Kerry's voting record before deciding to vote for him and it seemed fairly consistent. For example he always votes for gun control, he always votes pro-choice, he usually leans towards environmentalists, leans away from war.

It looked like he was inconsistent on Iraq, but if you analyze it I don't think he was. He was remarkably consistent in his opposition to military intervention even back to the first Gulf War, being one of the few who voted against it. When he voted for it this time he felt it was an authorization only to be used if all else failed. When it became clear how gungho the Bush administration was he voted against funding further aggression.

I think it is clear he never was for the war in Iraq and realized that he had to deal with the reality that Bush had already commited us to it. I think he did a pretty good job on that.

Here's a few things I wanted from a president, hoping John Kerry would at least partially do, and feel George Bush will never do:

1. My Dad, who is now deceased, spent the last five years of his life very sick and suffering with piss-poor health care. He would probably be alive today if he had better care, and he worked hard his whole life. He got a raw deal.

All americans should have the best health care in the world. Not just some americans.

No one seems to question WHY health care is expensive. I think the biggest reason is greed.

I think america's health care should be treated like the highway system, the space program, the military. Instead of a profit center and cash cow for wealthy investors it should be an important part of our nation's infrastructure. Middle-men are profiting from other people's pain and sucking up profits big-time. I'm not talking about doctors, nurses, researchers, inventors - all of whom deserve to get rich when they contribute.

I'm talking about insurance companies, lawyers, investors, salesman, lobbyists, and high payed executives.

I think that just because an industry started exclusively in the private sector is no reason it has to stay there forever.

The airlines are another example of an important infrastructure that we trust too much to the private sector.

Education is one area that started in the public sector that we might want to try privatizing.

Back to my wishlist.

2. We are doing things in the war on terror that I feel are unneccesary and despicable. Some of this stuff we have allowed our government to do in the name of fighting terror is going to come back to bite us later.

Torturing prisoners either physically or mentally is one of these things. "Unlawful enemy combatant" is a nonsense phrase that is not recognized by the rest of the world (or us before now).

The bush administration made it up to justify their not treating "the detainees" as either prisoners of war, or regular criminals; so that they would be in a no-man's land outside of all international law or internal oversight.

They want to hold people indefinitely without anyone even knowing where they are and they want to do whatever they like to these people. Some of these men we are holding (or have held) were scooped up in raids of general buildings and certain areas.

Some are (or were before they were eventually released) only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and many were held and tortured for months or years wth no access to courts or international oversight.

It's just wrong and I would want the President to put an end to it. There needs to be checks and balances here.

3. I think abortion rights are intertwined with woman's rights and to outlaw them would be a major setback to equality between the sexes.

I would want a President who supports Roe vs Wade.

A woman can never be equal if she can be forced to give birth to a child she considers a mistake, even at the expense of her own career, education or health.

I believe the groups who oppose abortion (and all of us in general) should lobby to reduce the number of abortions by promoting abstinence (yeah right), better birth control and adoption, but it should never be made illegal again.

4. I want a president who respects the press as our fourth branch of government and welcomes their critisism.

He should hold frequent press conferences (Bush holds almost none) and not try to intimidate the press by shutting of access to those who write articles critical of his administration. He should not limit questions to only one, or talk down to them in an arrogant manner like I saw him do last week.

I also want a president who welcomes dissent from the people and does not try to control demonstrations critical of his policies.

Bush is the first president to misuse the secret service to remove people with anti bush signs (and only those people) from motorcade routes and public speeches he makes. The whole country should be a "free-speech zone" not just a fenced off area far from his public appearances.

These appearances are one of the few occasions where a citizen who is angry at the president might have the opportunity to protest in a manner the president, and the press, can see.

This is important and I feel it is un-american for an american president to try to hide or squelch this dissent.

He should expect and welcome it, and respect the citizens point of view and his or her right to hold that protest sign in a president's face.

5. I want a president who does not lie to the people about who big tax cuts benefit the most. I don't believe voodoo economics works by trickling down from the top.

Also: The so called "death tax" actually affects so few people, a small group of multimillionares, but bush gives speeches where he insinuates that it is an evil thing that must be abolished for the good of everybody. The vast majority of estates pay no federal estate tax.

Regarding estate taxes: They are a good thing for society. Most people don't realize that if the wealth is not "leveled" to any extent after each generation it's like creating a never ending game of monopoly where the wealth gets pooled into a small number of families, basically like the european landowners of past centuries. This reduces opportunity for everyone else.

The middle class is going to pay for all these wealthy tax cuts with lower social services and higher deficits.

I want a president who taxes the wealthy more, and the middle class less and stimulates the economy through targeted government spending programs.

6. I think we all deserve a president who is eloquent, and a superb public speaker. This is a big part of his job. We should have a president who speaks in full sentences (not fragments) and has no trouble putting together complete thoughts at the spur of the moment.

It is embarrasing to me that our current president need a little notebook to flip through whenever he speaks, and still manages to say the wrong thing almost as many times as not.

Well, that's enough for now. I'm just a peon, as a poster before me already said, and I felt that John Kerry would have done (or at least tried to do) these important things for our country.

[Dallas4u]

I love sitting back and watching this thread now... most of my sentiments are typed out without me needing to say one word!

Originally posted by jimbo
I believe the groups who oppose abortion (and all of us in general) should lobby to reduce the number of abortions by promoting abstinence (yeah right), better birth control and adoption, but it should never be made illegal again.

Check this out...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...etogiveoutpill

[BaM*BaM]

Very Well Said, Jimbo

[t2p]

Bush did not 'lie' about the tax cuts.
.
On the 'Bush' tax cuts:
.
If you have a child - you received a benefit.
.
If you are married - you received a benefit.
.
If you paid *any* tax at all - you received a benefit.
.
The previous rates of 15, 28, 31, 26 and 39.6 percent were replaced with 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent.
.
.
Now - the *real* question is ...........
.
Will the cuts do everything Bush and this administration has promised ? Who knows. Many have stated one reason the recession was relatively short and 'shallow' was primarily due to the tax cuts. Some have countered with the opposite. Depends on whom you prefer to listen to - there are strong (and compelling) arguments on both sides of this issue.
.