So Pissed @ Bush

[10secimportpyro]

So I was pissed at Bush about everything before but then the whole hurricane Katrina comes along. I mean he sucks balls (Bush) at dealing with the situation and what not. Fine. I can deal with that more so but then today he nominates John Roberts to be Chief Justice. What the FUCK

Comments

I wasn't referring to the hurricanes

[pirateoftheeast]

When I said people screwed themselves. I was referring to people eventually having their rights infringed upon, despite voting for the party which was "less government". My ass. I don't know enough about the Katrina disaster and the govt. response to really say anything about it, but I can say that having the government dictate people's life choices (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) is borderlining bullshit. That's the reason why I'm siding with the "liberal" side of these social issues. The state should be helping (ex. disaster relief), rather than imposing.

I do think we should fix the inconsistency with the issue of killing a pregnant woman vs. abortion. The pregnant woman should be a single homicide; the baby ain't alive until it's born. Hence: Benjamin B. Tsui, born January 16, 1986. Are we going to charge another sperm of murder, for screwing the sperm you were concieved from, from ever reaching the egg, by pushing its way in first, or whacking its tail on yours?

Ultimately, with the whole conservative vs. liberal argument, the philosophy behind conservative (ask Kenny Lawson, or B Hawkins *wink*) is returning to tradition. And the philosophy behind liberal is advancing forward. Whether that is really the case with the labels we put on the parties today is questionable, but I think ultimately, as people who want to see the world improve (I mean, unless you wanna start working on railroads again), we are at heart "liberal".

Which really brings me back to my point; these politics are all bullshit. The Supreme Court is a bunch of h4x0ring n00bs.

Re: I wasn't referring to the hurricanes

[communistben]

Those people who voted for Bush are strong conservatives that believe in traditional values. If you are so keen on liberal values, why don't you advocate pologamy or pedophile, we must not impede on life choices such as those, right? Moral relativism is fun ain't it?

Every time you masterbate you kill dozens of future children, and a kitten dies. And we should stop women from having periods, somehow.

Classical Liberalism does not mean moral relativism, it is the decadent "liberals" who have no values but toward anarchy.

Conservatives do not want to go back to the days of slave labor, they want to re-enforce time tested moral values as well as further free trade(economic classical liberalism).

Re: I wasn't referring to the hurricanes

[10secimportpyro]

Conservatives don't want to go back to slave labor, yes. But liberals are not advocating anarchy, and most of them do not advocate pologamy. Sure, there are the extremes on both sides that argue that, but mainstream liberalism (and conservatism) is not like that.

What are traditional values? Who dictates those? Andy may be liberal at heart, but he is not (and me neither) an anarchist (or so I hope ;-). Most liberals want change (or to go forward) but in moderation. Somethings you mention seem completely irrelevant. Why should we stop women from having periods? Oh, and wasn't pologamy ok back in the day?

Re: I wasn't referring to the hurricanes

[pirateoftheeast]

yes, because a woman is your property =)

Re: I wasn't referring to the hurricanes

[10secimportpyro]

Exactly...does America want that today? Go back to that????

Re: I wasn't referring to the hurricanes

[communistben]

Women were never property in US history. Blacks were though, ahahah.

Should we treat life in the cheap?

Re: I wasn't referring to the hurricanes

[10secimportpyro]

Agreed, it seems like we should all move a bit forward to change with the times. Certainly, I don't want either extreme, and would rather be mid-ground than either. I like your points.