I hate thinking that my vote has a litmus test...one issue on which it all hinges. I don't believe it does, but I know there are some things on which it's real close, and one is abortion.
I know when
Barak Obama last night said the court got it right in Roe V. Wade, I bristled. I believe abortion is murder. That fact was never more clear to me than when I saw the first sonogram of the youngster, and realized that this was a living person, and yanking him out of the womb and round filing him would be criminal.
I believe we're killing babies, and to say that's a moral issue is just as ridiculous as calling rape a moral issue...or robbery...or drunk driving...or anything else we have a law against because it's freaking
wrong. Ted
Bundy killed women across the country and went to death for it. We kill babies every day and that's a "moral issue." The only opposing argument I hear is.."Well, would it be better to have unwanted pregnancies? Do you think it's OK for 13 year old kids to be mothers?" and as soon as you go there, you're conceding that it's murder and saying....it's OK to kill people out of convenience. Is there a more inconvenient truth? I have yet to meet someone who has the balls to actually verbalize that, but it is, in effect, what they're saying. In order to prevent a 13 year old girl from being a mom, we advocate killing people. Do people actually believe that? They try to rationalize it away, by convincing themselves it's not really a person, but every one of them, in their heart of hearts, knows better. They smooth that over with "Well,
I think it's wrong, but I don't want to force my beliefs on someone else." Why, how "holier than thou" of you. What's the difference between that and a mother who sends her kids into a lake to drown in the family car? "Well,
I think that's wrong, but..." my ass. For the record, I don't think it's OK for 13 year old kids to have children, but I don't think murder is an acceptable alternative.
Foreign policy is another that's pretty close. I think a short term view of our place in the world and whether or not we can live in peace is disastrous in the long term. We can survive those disasters, but why should we? I don't know anybody that doesn't want the world to live in peace, but I don't know any terrorists, either. People want to use the amount of lives lost in Iraq as an argument for abandoning that effort, but you have to realize that you're looking at it through the eyes of a person who values human life more than freedom, and you're dealing with an enemy who values human life so little, that the justification for ending their own is how many others they can take with them. In the short term, you'll save a few lives. In the long term, you'll lose more lives and the freedom you gave up to save the few in the short term. That enemy looks at the fact that you hold human life in high regard as a weakness to be exploited. That doesn't mean you sink to their level, but it does mean they have to be stopped.
Taxes and the whole class envy topic, which Obama loves to exploit. Why do people making $250,000 a year have to be taxed at a higher
rate than people making $100k a year? Let me first add that the wife and I combined
don't come close to making $250k a year, and don't expect to anytime during the foreseeable future. Just because it's not me, though, doesn't make it fair. Why is it OK to penalize people for being successful? Is it just...you have more than I do, so we should take more? I don't see what's so fair about that, and it's a disincentive to achieve. Why bust your ass and try to be more successful just so you can give more to the government? Let's also be clear that people making $250k a year already pay more in taxes that people making $100k a year, or $35k a year, or $200k a year, for that matter. When they pay 36% of $250k a year, that's already more than 36% of $240k a year, or anything less. These folks are already bearing a larger share of the tax burden than I am...or just about anyone I know. Why is it "fair" to ask them to bear even more? That whole "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need" thing doesn't work. It sounds noble, but human nature isn't noble. If you just give to each according to their need, you'll never see anyone realize the full potential of their ability, or anything close to it.
For example, let's say I'm a successful guy, making 200 thousand dollars a year. Me? I ought to quit right there, but let's let the imagination run wild. I'm this successful guy, and I have this great idea. If I run with this idea, I'll start a new company. If it's successful, I'll hire 500 people who will in turn support families and pay taxes. They'll buy homes, and cars, and flat screen TVs, and keep the economy going. To do this I'll have to bust my ass and work nights and weekends to get it off the ground, and it's still a gamble. Maybe it'll be successful. Maybe it won't. If I'm wildly successful, I project my profit after the whole mess will be about 51 thousand dollars a year, but then after Obama taxes even more of my income, it's a wash. If I'm successful, I end up taking home exactly what I take home now. Why take on the risk and the extra work?
Now, I know John McCain isn't exactly Mr. Pro-Life. He supports the Pro-Life movement more than Obama does, but hasn't always. If Jerry Falwell was running though, I don't think I'd vote for him just because of this issue. I actually would have a hard time voting for him at all. I need more information on other issues regarding the economy, foreign policy, taxes, what or who you use as a humidor, and so on.
Together though, all the issues
do come out as a litmus test, and they determine my vote. No amount of posturing on half truths in a "debate" and commercials that pretend to address issues will change that.
Based on all that, I see the priorities of your typical pro-choice Obama fan looking something like this:
1) convenience - if it's easy and gets me out of a jam, it's better
2) human life - it's important, as long as it doesn't interfere with convenience, or Suzie's clubbing schedule, or her friendship with benefits with that hot guy in 3rd period English that might be the father of her baby..oh, excuse me, what baby?
3) freedom - it's important, but it's not worth dying for
4) entitlement - if you can let me keep what's mine, and give me some of someone
else's who has more than me, and make me feel like I somehow deserve that...sign me up
Please, someone show me where I'm wrong, because that's what I'm hearing and I think it's pretty pitiful.
I'm John of the Lumberyard, and I improved this message.
Labels: Politics