RE: I view it as rationalization, and a willingness to buy into moral relativism.
Willingness to cut taxes and unwillingness IS a difference. It isn’t moral relativism.
RE: Obama is _very_ pro abortion, Romney is absolutely willing to make exceptions for incest, rape (killing the innocent), and “the health of the mother” (code-words for “at will” & status quo). — Voting for Obama or Romney therefore does nothing to end the American Holocaust.
I’m with you regarding abortion. I am not even willing to kill the baby even when the mother is raped. I’d rather we help the child get adopted.
But yet, what is LESS WORSE? To save some babies or not to save any baby at all?
Rape and Incest are small numbers compared to the vast number of abortions out there.
So, your choice — Leave all babies to be killed or some babies to be killed. Given this hard choice, I select the later reluctantly.
RE: No it is not. We were given the opportunity to choose between evil and good-compromised-with-evil (which *ALWAYS* works to evil’s favor).
Oh yes it is. Cutting corporate taxes to 25% and eliminating the death tax is NOT compromise.
It is a HUGE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
Better than leaving it at 35% ( the highest in the world ) and leaving the death tax existent.
RE: Is that what it means to be a Republican? That it’s ‘ok’ to give up a mile so long as you don’t give up a mile and an inch?
Again, you are not given the best choice. You are given the choice between two evils. In which case, i have no choice but to select the lesser one.
It has nothing to do with being Republican, it is simply a way of stopping, reversing or slowing down the greater evil.
>> RE: Obama is _very_ pro abortion, Romney is absolutely willing to make exceptions for incest, rape (killing the innocent), and “the health of the mother” (code-words for “at will” & status quo). — Voting for Obama or Romney therefore does nothing to end the American Holocaust.
>
> I’m with you regarding abortion. I am not even willing to kill the baby even when the mother is raped. I’d rather we help the child get adopted.
We are in agreement there.
> But yet, what is LESS WORSE? To save some babies or not to save any baby at all?
Let me flip that around: which is worse to allow it to continue, or to make a token gesture that has no impact and then pat ourselves on the back as if we had done something?
This is not exactly a hollow hypothetical, the Gnosell trial is a perfect example of how the Partial Birth Abortion ban is impotent — what he did wasn’t exactly “an isolated incident,” but (though it’s not reported) more mainstream than anyone with a conscience would be comfortable admitting.
> Oh yes it is. Cutting corporate taxes to 25% and eliminating the death tax is NOT compromise.
> It is a HUGE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
Again, the President has no such authority. That is altering law and properly under the Congress, not the Executive.
> Again, you are not given the best choice. You are given the choice between two evils. In which case, i have no choice but to select the lesser one.
That is only because you buy into a false dichotomy. — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
> It has nothing to do with being Republican, it is simply a way of stopping, reversing or slowing down the greater evil.
No, it is not. It is the process of making the normal into extremes and the extremes into normal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Ask yourself this: if you were presented with the Obama/Romney choice over and over again (different people, but the same premises), the only difference being how bad they were [really bad vs. pretty bad] do you not resign to embracing a policy of “the best that can happen is to stay the same”? — If that is the case, then at what point will you ever “reverse the evil” — the answer is you will not, not ever.