Swanson’s Ridiculous Take on Non-Discrimination Laws »« Brace Yourselves for a ‘Tidal Wave’ of Gay Rights

Kerry Won’t Fight Terrorists Because He’s Pro-Choice

We’re used to some seriously daffy claims from David Barton and his radio co-host Rick Green, but the one they launched into on their show on Monday is particularly baffling. They seem to think that Obama and Kerry won’t fight against the terrorists (you know, the ones they’re bombing the shit out of right now) because they support reproductive rights.

“I don’t know why that Louie [Gohmert] would think that John Kerry has any moral equivalency given the position that John Kerry holds on marriage, on homosexuality, on abortion, on religious conscience, on religious expressions,” Barton said. “I mean, since he opposes everything that’s traditionally moral, why would there be a question of whether he’s moral” when it comes to terrorism?

While Barton said that he was being a little facetious, Green replied that he was absolutely correct because “if [Kerry is] so wrong on all these other clear moral issues, how can we expect him to figure this one out.”

“If you’re wrong on an issue as simple as innocent life, then you have real trouble with guilty life as well,” Barton explained. “When you take an unborn child this is innocent life and he doesn’t think that that’s right and wrong to take the life of an innocent unborn child, then when you see something like Hamas, which is guilty people who are murderers being taken out, he thinks that that’s abominable.”

“His whole value system is skewed,” Barton concluded, “and that’s the way so much of this administration has been,” which is why it has been wrong on everything from economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy.

“You just can’t be a world leader if you don’t believe that certain things are right and certain things are wrong.”

Okey dokey. If you say so.

Comments

  1. reddiaperbaby1942 says

    “You just can’t be a world leader if you don’t believe that certain things are right and certain things are wrong.”
    First of all, this is a complete non sequitur. The two things have nothing to do with each other. There have been been only too many world leaders whose sense of right and wrong has been seriously distorted, or who have simply disagreed with the proposition: for them, the only relevant issue is power.
    Secondly, while I think most people would agree that “certain things are right and certain things are wrong,” we disagree as to what those things are, and which way they are polarized. For instance, I think that most of what you consider wrong is right and vice versa.
    Thirdly, I assume you do understand that control by men over women’s bodies and reproductive rights is WRONG.
    So just STFU.

  2. Mr Ed says

    An exercises in moral absolutes. Kerry has, what they consider, immoral position on abortion so all of his positions on everything must be immoral. Morally you are either always right or always wrong, human beings are either perfect or utterly flawed.

  3. John Pieret says

    If you’re wrong on an issue as simple as innocent life, then you have real trouble with guilty life

    Of course (with Barton), that’s exactly backwards. The question of where, between zygotes and fetuses a human life comes into existence is not “simple” but hard, which is why there is so much controversy about whether contraception methods are “abortifacients” and how late in term abortions can be performed. Hamas indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel is easily determined to be wrong. But it may also be wrong to indiscriminately bomb Gaza in retaliation. That’s where the calculation gets hard again.

  4. Chiroptera says

    So, reproductive rights and LGBT rights are the opposite morality of immediately bombing people before you truly understand whether the bombing would be counterproductive? Me, I can actually buy that.

  5. says

    While Barton said that he was being a little facetious, Green replied that he was absolutely correct because “if [Kerry is] so wrong on all these other clear moral issues, how can we expect him to figure this one out.”

    “Let’s take a caller. Sense of Self Awareness on line 1. Sense, what’s your question? Sense? Hello? Are you there?…It looks like we’ve lost Sense of Self Awareness. Let’s to go Irony on line 2…”

  6. dugglebogey says

    Every single person I disagree with on any political issue is a HORRIBLE PERSON. No, they are not merely people with whom I have a disagreement, but still have rights and should be assumed to be a good person. No, they are HORRIBLE people who should be hunted down and stopped from acting on their beliefs, because they do not EXACTLY align with my beliefs.

    Sheesh.

  7. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @4. John Pieret : “Hamas indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel is easily determined to be wrong. But it may also be wrong to indiscriminately bomb Gaza in retaliation. That’s where the calculation gets hard again.”

    If you assume the premise that Israelis bombing Gaza “indiscriminately” – despite a few mistakes it is not. Israel’s bombing -unlike Hamas’es is targeted and in response to those firing at it. Big differences.

  8. says

    …where “a few mistakes” = “completely destroying what little economic infrastructure Gaza had before this latest bombing campaign.”

    Seriously, Stevie, you need to grow up and face reality. And in the meantime, stop hijacking every damn thread with your bigoted babyish warmongering.

  9. John Pieret says

    StevoR @ 8:

    If you assume the premise that Israelis bombing Gaza “indiscriminately”

    Which is why I allowed that the calculation of its moral rightness or wrongness is complicated. Apparently you prefer simplistic answers, like the two morons in the OP.

  10. howardhershey says

    “You just can’t be a world leader if you don’t believe that certain things are right and certain things are wrong.”

    At risk of invoking Godwin, wasn’t Hitler a world leader? One who was pro-marriage (unless it involved a mixed marriage with an Aryan), anti-abortion (unless it was a ‘mongrel’ child of a Jew and Aryan), pro-religion (unless it was Jewish, both Catholics and Protestants were acceptable), and anti-homosexual (he was shocked, shocked! to learn that Ernst Rohm was a pervert).

  11. colnago80 says

    Re Raging Bee @ #9

    Just for the Bee’s information, if the thread was hijacked, it was by John Pieret @ #4. StevoR was just responding to that comment.

    Apparently, the Bee thinks that commentors should be immune from criticism when they attack Israel. Too bad that the Government of Israel didn’t impose Hama Rules on the Gaza Strip as that would give Israel bashers like the Bee something to really whine about.

  12. Kevin Kehres says

    You just can’t be a world leader if you don’t believe that certain things are right and certain things are wrong.

    Stopped watch. Except he’s looking at the time upside down.

    It’s not that hard — the things you think are “right” and “wrong” are not the same thing other people (ie, normal, rational, non-assholes) think are “right” and “wrong”.

    You know who thought he was right about “certain things”? Hitler! That’s who! And Stalin. Stalin thought he was right. And Mao, and Pol Pot. All of them thought they were “right” about certain things. Just having an ethical code of “right vs wrong” is not a guarantee that it’s the correct ethical code for the benefit of humans.

Leave a Reply