Bush vs. Kerry

Originally Posted by Rune Hunter

I don't why people would vote for Bush but I can think of many reasons why they would vote for Kerry!

1. Kerry would help the middle-class more then the rich!

2. He would do the right thing in the war (most likely)

3. Bush screwed things up and does NOT deserve anouterh chance after that.

4. We could have spent 200 billion dallars on things that the USA needs. Such as we could have bought houses for the home less, and helped the people that need help in the USA first! I thought our own country would come first. But not to Bush!!!!

You're not old enough to vote, are you?

Originally Posted by jlou

"Skin color should not be considered when hiring, unless members of a certain race have been suppressed because of their race in the past and therefore current members of that race are at a disadvantage when it comes to the other considerations for the job/school. Once the extra help is effective in leveling the playing field, then skin color should again be removed from consideration."

"unless members of a certain race" is an attempt to bypass the entire veil of ignorance concept. Nope.

anonytmouse, changing a few words around doesn't quite do it. But you're right about the general idea. I along with an awful lot of republicans am not in favor of that sort of amendment. I personally don't believe that the government should have ANY role in marriage.

by the way, thanks for the negative feedback. I love the fact that expressing a right-wing opinion here is the quickest way to get red squares!!

Originally Posted by FillYourBrain

"unless members of a certain race" is an attempt to bypass the entire veil of ignorance concept. Nope.

No it is not... it only assumes that there exists such a thing as race and that it is possible for two people to be of a different race, something that your original statement assumes as well. If it were to say which race was the one being suppressed, then it would bypass the veil of ignorance concept, but it doesn't.

Maybe a better choice of words would be "unless members of a particular race".

Again, I'm not advocating affirmative action, I am only saying that one can be a proponent of affirmative action without violating the "veil of ignorance" concept. Since you have already acknowledged that the conservative stance on gay marriage is not supported by your veil of ignorance logic, that would support my contention that conservative opinions on social issues are not a reason to support Bush.


I am only trying to understand others' reasoning behind their choice of Bush, and trying to see if that logic makes sense to me. So far, the only response I've seen, though well presented, makes me think Kerry would still be the better choice.

P.S. FYB, please don't be discouraged by negative feedback. At this point, you are the only conservative to even attempt to help answer my questions.

jlou, I appreciate that you're trying to understand the enemy. That's good.

Like I said, I'm a fiscal conservative. But I'm also a social libertarian to some degree. I am not going to agree on every conservative issue, but as a social libertarian (to some degree) I see government as something that gets in the way far more than it should.

Economy is the major reason that the Republican party is better for me. I am a strong believer in capitalism. Philosophy that redistributes wealth proceeds under an illusion that there is some "pie" that we should get an equal piece of in order to be fair. It ignores the fact that changes in the slices of the pie can have an effect on the size of the "pie" over time.

Originally Posted by jlou

P.S. FYB, please don't be discouraged by negative feedback. At this point, you are the only conservative to even attempt to help answer my questions.

I may be the only one around here!
But I'm obviously not the only one in the US. Thank God.

Originally Posted by FillYourBrain

I personally don't believe that the government should have ANY role in marriage.

hahahaha
hahahahaahhahahhahahah
hahahahahahha
heeeheee

No, I agree with you 100% here, but it's just not ever going to happen.

Maybe I should be crying instead.

you shouldn't agree with me so easily. You might get a pretty red square from someone.

Getting the government out of marriage isn't a liberal or conservative issue, it's a freaking common sense issue.'

edit: Duh, I get it now
vvvvvvvvvvvvv

I aint shootin for right or left here.

Originally Posted by FillYourBrain

by the way, thanks for the negative feedback. I love the fact that expressing a right-wing opinion here is the quickest way to get red squares!!

Unfortunately you can be voted down (or against) for any reason, either here, or running for a seat in congress, or running for president, because there's nothing that says anybody absolutely must respect your opinion when they disagree. Kind of sucks. Unfortunately it also stifles communication, and makes it less likely for people to find common ground. I'm more liberal/socialistic (voted for Kerry, obviously), but I respect the fact that you are a right winger and probably see things differently than I.

Well squares don't mean anything here and I personally feel that allowing people to place red ones by your name simply because of an opinion on the GD board really defeats the purpose of them. Squares should be reserved for programming issues only. Anything else is simply unfair.

FYB, you sound much more like a Libertarian than a Republican. Although, Republicans are theoretically as strong supporters of capitalism as Libertarians, I generally find that mainstream Republicans still want a good bit of government intervention in the economy (trade restrictions, tariffs, subsidies, tax breaks, etc). The Libertarian platform is that in both social and economis issues, the government should stay out as much as possible (and that the primary function of the government is to provide for the common defense, and not too much more).

>>The economy thrives when capitalism is allowed to operate naturally.

The problem with capitalism is the EVERYTHING has a price.
This includes your values and your job.

>>The president's handling of the war in Iraq was the kicker for me.

Strange how he man with no actual experience of war is considered best to fight one (compared to a man who choose to fight for his country and was awarded medals for his actions).

>>With the "veil of ignorance" corrected statement in place, affirmative action can not be reasonably considered as it violates the principle that skin color should not be considered.

Its good to see that the US elected its fifth black senator in 216 years (to serve 1/8 of the population). To add to the total of eleven monority senators it has elected since 1788. (out of 1,864 that have served)

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps1...g/stat_15.html

Freedom and justice for all! (unless your coloured, poor, gay, non christian or not an American)