A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore

The issue here is not when does a baby inside the womb become life.Yes, people have gone to jail for murder from killing an "unborn child".
How one be murder, and the other not?Please, I started another thread, lets talk about it there.

There are a couple of other points on which we disagree, but we haven't (yet) been involved on the threads for those topics at the same time. I will let you know that I find most of your posts well written and well reasoned, so I do pay attention when you express a point of view with which I disagree.I also realized last night that this was getting way, way off topic. I will clarify, though, that I am not extolling the virtues of the Taliban in any way shape or form; a world without people like the Taliban would, in my opinion, be a better world.I'm also not extolling the virtues of pacifism. Although I respect pacifism, I am not myself a pacifist. I recognize that sometimes there are situations where the violence is the best option out of a choice of bad options.Edited by Chiroptera, : clarity

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

I agree, which is why no part of my post is about that. It isn't. It's only considered murder in a few states, and only in those states to provide a future justification for ending abortion. Arguing from the existence of those laws is circular reasoning, because those laws were passed only to allow you to argue from them. They serve no other purpose.

I don't know about you, but if I intended to have a child with my wife, and something happened where the baby was injured or killed from an outside force, such as a robber, I would want that person put in jail. and not just because he hurt a part of my wife, but because he hurt my future child.In my mind, that would be considered murder. But abortion is not.

A "part" of your wife? Like, the functionality of her uterus is all you care about? For you to draw a distinction between harm to your wife and harm to your wife's reproductive organs is pretty sick, I think. But it proves what I've been saying all along - the only interest you have in your wife is her role, which you believe the government should give you the right to demand, in producing your progeny.And if your wife went off and had an abortion, because she realized that she's nothing but a baby machine to you? What then? Should she go to jail, too?

Take that back please, that was uncalled for.

quote:

---

A "part" of your wife? Like, the functionality of her uterus is all you care about? For you to draw a distinction between harm to your wife and harm to your wife's reproductive organs is pretty sick, I think. But it proves what I've been saying all along - the only interest you have in your wife is her role, which you believe the government should give you the right to demand, in producing your progeny.

​

And if your wife went off and had an abortion, because she realized that she's nothing but a baby machine to you? What then? Should she go to jail, too?

---

Crash, I fail to see how you have inferred this from a single comment from RR saying that:

quote:

---

...I would want that person put in jail. and not just because he hurt a part of my wife, but because he hurt my future child.
  —RiverRat

---

This comment seems to refer to his opinion that a fetus is a living being and not only a collection of cells that happens to be a part of his wife.Inferring that he only cares about his wife in a "baby-making" capacity is highly insulting. It is also off-topic in this thread, and (I believe) breaks the rule regarding arguing the position and not the person.Please consider offering an apology to RR immediately, and take this discussion to the other thread.

quote:

---

Did you see his [Gore Vidal] article comparing Bush to Jonah from the Bible?

---

Just read it. Slow start, in my opinion, but good reading once it got up to speed. (I liked his reference to people who "live in real countries.")Oddly, I found two versions which differ in the final paragraphs.One written before the State of the Union address, and one written afterwards.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Clinton didn't have a budget surplus unless you use the kind of accounting that gets private citizens taxpayer-funded secure lodging. Clinton achieved his apparent surplus by increasing the the overall government drain on the economy by a whopping 2% of the GDP. The overall federal debt still grew during Clinton's watch.Now I'm not saying that dubya's policies are an improvement mind you, but Clinton's administration has no more claim to fiscal responsibility than the current crowd.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

quote:

---

The overall federal debt still grew during Clinton's watch.

---

Overall federal debt and budget surplus are not the same thing.

quote:

---

Clinton achieved his apparent surplus by increasing the the overall government drain on the economy by a whopping 2% of the GDP.

---

Where do you get this, because according to my info, it's simply false.My info indicates that, as a percentage of the GDP, government spending declined by a "whopping" two percent.Oh, and my info is from The Economist.(methinks you should stop getting your information from right-wing Clinton-bashing websites)Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

Well I guess you don't get any more right-wing than my source, but I think it's still reliable (for a given value of reliable)...official gubmint document and all that:Error 404Problem is we're looking at different numbers. I agree that Clinton had a budget surplus (sort of) but I contend he did so by increasing the government burden on the economy and playing accounting tricks that would get you or I jailed. I have not said that dubya's gubmint is more responsible than that of Clinton. Lies of that magnitude will get you struck down by God...and if there is no God the multiverse may spawn one special for the occasion.Edited by Wepwawet, : Because I guess I don't spell so gud.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

And it is only fair to look at the budget surplus or deficit for a presidents actions to apply: he writes the budget and presents it to congress.The equation is simple:Clinton + Republican Congress = Budget Surplus
Bush + Republican Congress = Budget DeficitWhen you take out the common element and solve for relative performance you get:Bush = Clinton + Budget Deficit - Budget SurplusParticularly when the main element of the deficit is the false war in Iraq waged by the Botch administration.It is Schwubbia's tax whenever it is passed to bring the budget back into some resemblance of fiscal responsibility.I do think that the total DEBT is the responsibility of all the past president AND congresses. Congress could pass a bill that requires a balanced budget AND a program to deal with the Debt (bonds or equal = volutary tax, or tax on those who benefit from the economy in proportion to their benefit = user tax).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yeah, I wasn't claiming it was Vidal's best, just funny and particularly pointed given what happened. I'll check out the different versions (can't remember which one I read off hand).On your earlier reply to me, I understood (or assumed) you weren't trying to say something nice about the Taliban, nor advocate overt pacifism... just a difference in opinion on how well the Afghans are faring now v then.I was sort of following events there for a long time (since the soviet invasion and off n on since then), and have some relatively specific opinions about Afghanistan, its difference from the invasion of Iraq, and the Karzai gov't.Not that these opinions are ironclad, just strong and specific and something I'd debate. You (and others) may have some very reasonable counterpositions. Maybe even convince me I'm wrong. Even if not... eh... I'm sure I wouldn't lose any respect for ya. I also like your writing/reasoning and reasonable people may always disagree somewhere.BTW I agree with your and weps assessment of the MM pledge. It was gloating. He better hope he doesn't have to eat those words later.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

There are many fair ways to look at this and many more unfair ways...in this case I believe what we've been discussing is equally valid...just different. The primary difference is the conclusions we have reached based on the evidence that we are looking at. For the record, I think the conclusion that Clinton had more responsible budgets than dubya is valid. I also think that the fact that the U.S. debt grew during the Clinton administration shows that he was not responsible enough.We can quibble all day long in the middle ground but unless you can show a reduction in the U.S. debt during the Clinton presidency I think my point is valid. Agreed...although I'm personally in favor of a flat tax.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

so . . .you have a person who makes 20,000.
you have another who makes 40,000.
let's just say a 10% flat rate.
person a has 18,000 left.
person b has 36,000 left.who still has an easier time paying bills, buying food, and taking care of the kids, and all the other necessities?
we need a scaled tax, but a much better designed one.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.