A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
To be fair, Obama still shows quite some enthusiasm towards wars…
That is entirely true. But I think the point they were going for is a fiscal one. Much of the argument against the Affordable Care Act was that we couldn’t afford it. And much of this was from people who had no problem putting a pointless war on the country’s credit card.
It was’t pointless. It just saved *trillions* of good God-fearing Christians from the Brown Man’s Terror! Think of the Children! (Who don’t need healthcare. Duh! It so much less glamorous than war…)
Or did the War on Terror actually lose support?
Lost support from the government? No. “Terror” is far too good of an excuse to do things they want to do anyway and need an excuse for.
Lost support among the people? In 2002 me and Ron Paul, and like 10 other people in this country were saying this is a bad idea. We were mostly dismissed as being anti-american or wanting the terrorists to win. These days there is a lot more open criticism of the powers the government granted itself after 9/11, and some of the ways they have abused that power. At this point, probably 20% or so of the population has reconsidered their support for things they blindly supported at the time.
In general americans are still nitwits who crow about freedom but will trade it for convenience at the first sign of trouble. I’d never say we haven’t earned our reputation as the rednecks of the world. But we do occasionally show we can learn something.
Still, in this country we don’t so much get a choice between a war candidate or a peace candidate. What we get is a choice between a more war candidate, and a slightly less war (or at least more efficient war) candidate. The policies are already decided. The people who make those decisions aren’t going to take a chance on policies changing every 4 years. So we get two candidates pretending to be different while representing the same interests.
It would be slightly oversimplifying to say that all of U.S. foreign policy is about oil. But yeah, the short version is, if you have oil we’ll be there. We’ll come up with a reason. This is not something our two main parties disagree on.
The democrats wouldn’t pass for a left wing party in any civilized country. But in the choice between corporate tools, and corporate tools who are doubling down on theocracy and xenophobia, actively declaring war on women, gays, and any nonwhite ethnicities, cutting education, infrastructure, and social services (while pushing to spend even more on the military than we already do) and somehow being even bigger corporate tools than the democrats, there is one clearly better choice.
Because abortion is not killing! Yay!
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html
I bet Roberts and the other 4 aren’t either.
So abortion is not killing?
Im not sure what you are getting at in this post’s comments but a good intellectual discussion regarding morality and abortion is going on on the forums at:
JoFro: That would depend, is a miscarriage an abortion? I have “poisoned the well” with my question just as you have with your question. The fact remains if you spend it on healing its ‘socialism’ (the term used by religious conservatives) if you spend it on killing its capitalism.
Follow Patheos on