Quote:
Instar said:
I should clarify why Bush's positions are immoral and wrong:
Science - His conservative staff and such are impeding science, something most abhorrent to me. Not just stem cells, mind you. Several federal studies that conservative Groups hated have been dropped from federal funding. Consider the study of disease vectors: a study done on how truck stops play roles in the transmission of diseases. The research was done on all aspects of how a truck stop and truckers spread disease: drugs, prostitutes, truck chasers, etc.. Conservative "Christian" Groups hated it and had Bush and Co. stop it.
Stem Cells - see above. Science ought not be so impeded.
Abortion - Bush is wrong again, see Judith Jarvis Thompson's "A Defense of Abortion," no one has yet countered it in my mind.
|
So he is wrong because his ethics conflict with yours?
Quote:
Instar said:
International relations - Bush is a joke here.
|
Most international relations between the more powerful and the less powerful are a joke anymore. As there are very few, if any, other nations with the military and economic clout of the US, most international relations involving the US will be a joke, regardless of who is president.
Quote:
Instar said:
Gay Marriage - Bush is wrong again. Society will not crumble if we give equal rights to everyone, we can look overseas at different countries to see this.
|
What's the longest a society that was founded with exclusively (or nearly so) "traditional" marriage has survived after "non-traditional" marriges have become widespread? Perhaps it is simply a matter of caution; a "wait and see" on how well those more permissive countries are doing 50-60 years from now before jumping on the bandwagon. Meanwhile, there are a few states that do permit such, and the federal government has no constitutional authority on that issue (for now, granted - but changing that would just about take a constitutional amendment - requireing 2/3 of the states to ratify it, and likely a few decades).
Quote:
Instar said:
Missile Defense - Needs to be rethought and redesigned. I am for a solution that works, however, the current one is iffy at best.
|
Most methods of defense are iffy at best; the ones that are less iffy, such as the capacity for swift and utter annihilation of an attacker (aka ICBMs with nuclear warheads), are extremely unpopular on the international scene (and the local scene, too). Which is prefferable? An iffy defense that doesn't make all the other countries extremely nervous or a reasonably practical defense that does?
Quote:
Instar said:
Tax Cuts - They are good when you have spare cash, but we don't! National debt is dangerously high.
|
It's not so much the debt as the deficit that's the issue - but yeah, tax cuts are rather impractical at the moment. Of course, the debt is growing, and no politician can really afford to have a platform of RAISING taxes, now can they?