1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

If you are thinking about voting for Kerry, please read this first.

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Jailminister, Jun 8, 2004.

  1. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Certainly, I will concede the point that he has not cut spending as he should. But also, I do think he is better than the alternative. Also I would point out that the downturn in the economy did not begin on his watch. As a matter of fact, I remember this being an issue that hurt Gore in the 2000 election. The economy started going down almost a year before Bush was elected.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  2. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Fact is, Clinton was far more careful with his spending than Bush is. And the ironic thing is, Bush won the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, using weapons systems started and developed by the Clinton administration.

    They cut spending and greatly improved our fighting forces.

    You don't solve problems by throwing money at them. Bush doesn't get that.

    Eventually, those debts are going to have to be paid off, with interest, amounting to a huge tax increase for whoever is around to pay for them.

    He doesn't get that, either. Or he doesn't care.
     
  3. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Constitutionalist who will honor his oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, or Globalist who will ignore the US Constitution in his quest to expand the federal government and spread "democracy" around the world.

    It's an easy choice for me to make! [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Someone who is idealistic and promises the moon, but doesn't have the experience or the viability to actually make it happen, or someone who is the better of the two viable candidates. It's an easy choice for me to make [​IMG]

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  4. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    For some, no matter what conservative principle Bush tosses in the dumpster, they'll still vote for him.
     
  5. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joseph, you are the politician's dream.
     
  6. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny how that works. After seeing Bush's performance in Texas and his political background, I warned conservatives not to vote for him because he would promote leftist policies and do nothing about abortion. I wonder if there is a shortcoming in your process for evaluating politicians?
     
  7. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought one of Reagan's biggest mistakes was selecting Bush I as his VP running mate. I didn't vote for Bush II, because I knew he was just as liberal on the issues as his father was.
     
  8. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will concede one point here. Bush does have the experience and the ability to get things done.

    When he wanted sociallized medicine, he strog-armed half of his own party with threats to get it passed. Of course it was easy to get the Democrats on board since it's part of their agenda.

    When he wanted to waste many, many BILLIONS of OUR dollars to increase federal control and centralization of education, he just made a partnership with Ted Kennedy. He made it look easy, which it probably was.

    When he wants to spend nearly inconceivable amounts of money, he can get congress to raise the debt ceiling to some higher figure measured in TRILLIONS of dollars.

    In Pennsylvania, he managed to get his pro-abortion buddy Arlen Specter elected over the wishes of those who still, for some reason that is inconceivable to me, support him.

    He truly does know how to get things done. Except for the 3800 babies who are murdered daily, he seems to be helpless to stop the killing of even one.
     
  9. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Jim, you're assuming that he wants to stop it. As you said, the things he cares about, he gets done.

    The good news, if there is any, is that people are having fewer abortions than in the past. As someone else observed, it won't happen by changing laws, but by changing hearts.

    And that's underway, albeit too slowly.
     
  10. ballfan

    ballfan New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a beginning President Bush asked for, got and signed the ban on partial birth abortions. Of course now one judge has declared it unconstitutional and its under review in a couple other places. He is hamstrung by not having enough votes in congress to get it done properly.

    I'm against abortion completely but I realize that getting rid of it won't be as easy as some would want you to think. There is no magic wand to make it go away.

    At this point its going to take a constitutional amendment. I think the Republicans and conservative Democrats would do it if only they could put together the super majority needed to do it. They're a few votes short. The answer is to elect more conservatives in order to obtain that majority.
     
  11. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    No exceptions? Not even to save the mother's life. Not even in the case of Incest?
     
  12. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why should it take a constitutional amendment? We have the same constitutution under which it was illegal for most of our history.

    In fact, the constitution acknowledges the right of every person to life. a big step would be for the President to instruct the justice dept. to follow the law and allow states to prosecute abortion under their own laws. Roe V. Wade, as a court case, is only the law in that specific case. The pro-aborts and pro-life pretenders don't want us to realize that.

    Bush, of course, won't do this. It would be a high profile political and legal battle, and many pro-aborts aren't as dumb as many pro-lifers who will support politicians who go against their wishes. It therefore might cost votes.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Amen, PA Jim. Besides, under Article III, Section 2 the Republican Congress and President Bush can remove the abortion issue from under the jurisdiction of the federal courts right now. The fact that they are not even trying to do so speaks volumes about them. They are showing themselves to be pro-life in pretty much rhetoric only.
     
  14. ballfan

    ballfan New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    It will take a constitutional amendment and a very carefully written one at that.

    The why should be obvious. The judical system. You can't give it any leeway. It has to be spelled out clearly so judges that have been appointed for life can't make their own new law.

    You do realize abortion came about because judges made their own law to allow it. You do realize that the congress and the President brought into law a ban on partial birth abortion thats being overturned as we write because that law does not have the force of a constitutional amendment. Thats the why.
     
  15. ballfan

    ballfan New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a practical matter it can't be done. In the end a court will rule on each case. You have to have something that ties their hands.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No exceptions. Period.

    In the case of rape or incest, two wrongs do not make a right. It is wrong to kill an innocent child in the womb regardless of the reason why the child exists. How can one possibly condone killing an innocent person for the actions of a criminal?

    As far as the life of the mother is concerned, there is no medical reason for a direct abortion. If a medical procedure is necessary to attempt to save the mother's life and it is God's will that the child dies, then that is not a direct abortion under the principle of double effect. Here is some info:

    Is abortion ever medically necessary?
    Abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life.

    It is important to distinguish between direct abortion, which is the intentional and willed destruction of a preborn child, and a legitimate treatment a pregnant mother may choose to save her life. Operations that are performed to save the life of the mother—such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or an ectopic pregnancy that poses the threat of imminent death—are considered indirect abortions.

    They are justified under a concept called the "principle of double effect." Under this principle, the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently justified by the necessity of saving the mother's life.

    Essentially, both mother and child should be treated as patients. A doctor should try to protect both. However, in the course of treating a woman, if her child dies, that is not considered abortion.


    "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother." —Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president

    - www.all.org/issues/abhow02.htm
     
  17. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a practical matter it can't be done. In the end a court will rule on each case. You have to have something that ties their hands. </font>[/QUOTE]The Constitution is supposed to tie their hands. They simply claim the right to interpret it as they want to instead of what it was intended to say. Why do you think an amendment will fix it?

    It's up to the executive and legislative branches to fix that. Unfortunately, those in position there seem to like things the way they are, as do those who gladly support and elect them.
     
  18. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    I strongly disagree!
     
Loading...