Bush Isn't Pro-Life and I have the numbers to prove it

[YADA]

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned it yet but the problem with the conservatives is they don’t put their money where their mouth is. They say abortion is wrong, which it is, but cut back fuunding for programs that would otherwise keep the children from engaging in behavior that leads to abortion circumstances. They are all talk but don’t provide alternatives because they are too busy fudning other wasteful things that I won’t mention here.

I have not attacked you personally and do not appreciate the personal attacks and slurs on my character.

I noted Goofyjim’s post in earlier ones and it was his post [above] SoCalRC that I was referecneing when I discussed giving. I saw this [and understood it as an insult] as a blanket accusation that ‘conservatives do not put their money where their mouth is’.

As I said that the post that I was attempting to address when you attacked me as a person who needed to remember that christian charity does not desire recognition…I do not need to be affirmed in my giving nor my volunteerism,I know what I do and so does God…You know nothing of me personally…

Conservatives are maligned in this manner all the time, an attack that has no basis in fact…and you may think that the partial birth abortion ban has no impact on the abortion crisis in America…

if that were truly the case, NARAL, Planned Parenthood et al would have not fought so vigorously to defend against it…Te fact is, under Roe and Doe, there was no limit fro conception to birth upon abortions [which the average american did not support nor see to realize]…getting the nation in discussion and the reality of the practice in peolples mind is a victory…every journey begins with the first step…

 

[YADA]

Not sure what lines you are reading between to detect any resentment I am showing towards you.

I feel that you were out of line with what you said to YADA and stated that.

What you are doing is assuming, then restating it as if were a fact.

Thanks DMelosi for the defence of my character…

I really am a likable person…a person who tries to live the Gospel call to the best of my abilities

 

[Ender]

No one disputes that, gasp, the program will effect children in households making nearly $19,000 a year now and that the proposed changes would make some households making about $39,000 eligible. It’s just the $80,000 a year that the president keeps repeating that politicians like Grassley (R-IA) point out is a whopper.

Your numbers don’t agree with what is being presented by the media. CBS, in an article excoriating the president and Republicans for their opposition to the expanded S-CHIP program confirms what I said in my earlier post, that it: “target children typically in families with incomes of up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $41,300 for a family of four this year).” Proposed changes would not make households at the $39k level eligible - they are eligible today.

cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/21/opinion/main3286829.shtml

The summary of the bill passed by the senate contains this provision:
*(Sec. 110) Places a limitation on the matching rate for states that propose to cover children with effective family income exceeding 300% of the federal poverty line. *

It appears that the proposed new limit would increase to $60K for families of four and can go above that if individual states are so inclined although some limitation would apply to those who exceed that limit.

You seem to be fairly familiar with the provisions of this bill but the limits that are plainly in the new bill and that exist in the old one are nothing like the numbers you presented. The upper limit today is over $40K and will go to at least $60K. I don’t know what calculation the $80K number is based on but it clearly is not as great a whopper as you suggest - regardless of who makes the claim.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

None of this even touchs gunning down pregnant woman at random checkpoints in Iraq. …

One of the more bizzare rationalizations I have run across in 20 plus years of debating abortion on line.

 

[SoCalRC]

Your numbers don’t agree with what is being presented by the media. CBS, in an article excoriating the president and Republicans for their opposition to the expanded S-CHIP program confirms what I said in my earlier post, that it: “target children typically in families with incomes of up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $41,300 for a family of four this year).” Proposed changes would not make households at the $39k level eligible - they are eligible today.

cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/21/opinion/main3286829.shtml

The summary of the bill passed by the senate contains this provision:
*(Sec. 110) Places a limitation on the matching rate for states that propose to cover children with effective family income exceeding 300% of the federal poverty line. *

It appears that the proposed new limit would increase to $60K for families of four and can go above that if individual states are so inclined although some limitation would apply to those who exceed that limit.

You seem to be fairly familiar with the provisions of this bill but the limits that are plainly in the new bill and that exist in the old one are nothing like the numbers you presented. The upper limit today is over $40K and will go to at least $60K. I don’t know what calculation the $80K number is based on but it clearly is not as great a whopper as you suggest - regardless of who makes the claim.

Ender

Read both my replies - I noted that the 39 is sometimes expressed as 41, and that the hightest possible is in the 60s. The 80s is pulled from a request, not the actual law.

And, again, it is conservative think tanks that are placing Bush’s alternative as reaching primarily the insured, half of which are making $75K a year or more.

This makes it an even larger whopper, since the crticisms are dramatically more appropriate to the President’s plan than the health care he plans on killing.

 

[SoCalRC]

You are misusing the term Pro-Life perhaps intentionally, perhaps not. Pro-Life is the opposite of Pro-Abortion.

Sorry, I have to use the Roman Catholic definition. To me, life is precious from conception to natural death. To me, the 27,000 children who starve to death each day (about 10,000,000 a year) are just as much a concern to me as the millions of abortions. And, since I am also called not to judge and to love my enemies, I try to be just as concerned about the woman dying around the world in illegal abortions as well.

In a sentence or two…has Bush been for or against the anti-abortion agenda? Notice that I changed and said anti-abortion so the debate cannot be changed.

That would depend. Do you care about rhetoric, or results?

Bush has made two supreme court appointments. Both just joined an opinion reaffirming key points of Roe v. Wade and providing a blueprint for avoiding a partial birth aboriton ban.

Abortions and teen suicides are also reversing decline trends (and actually increasing in some states) under Bush’s presidency.

Last, the White House has direct connections to the Abramof scandal, which involved millions of dollars from human trafficing and forced abortions. It seems to me if you profit from abortion and slavery, and help thwart steps to alter the system that permits it, you are, in fact, an abortionist and a human rights violator, but that is just my opinion…

 

[SoCalRC]

Thanks DMelosi for the defence of my character…

I really am a likable person…a person who tries to live the Gospel call to the best of my abilities

Then why are you so intent on proving that one group of people is more gracious and giving than another? What passage in the Gospel is inspiring you?

I am sorry that pointing out that your citiations state the opposite of your point makes you feel attacked. But you, like most others here, are missing my point.

The way I see it, this whole subject is not remotely Christian. Trying to affiliate grace with a particular political philosophy or party is awfully self rightous. Further, it requires making moral condemnations of others in broad, stereotypical terms. This seems particular wrong to me as Luke predominates our Gospel readings.

In the Gospels, the answer to the question of salvation is always the same. Moral relativism, that is, judging one’s own actions in comparisons to others, is also always condemned as a yard stick which is of no concern to God.

Look at the point that alluded estesbob. If we create a construct where we associate our political beliefs directly with faith, why shouldn’t God confront us with that standard? If our best arguments at the gates of heaven are our ‘good works’ in the form of our politics, why shouldn’t we be held accountable for all the results of those votes?

I know I will be on my knees, begging. And I don’t relish the idea of pointing out, say, the ‘partial birth abortion ban’ as a postive from my life, only to be confronted with images of a 50 year old man being beaten to death in a sleeping bag, a terrorist suspect being tortured and killed by crucifixion, or a pregnant woman gunned down at a checkpoint in a war of choice - then asked to defend my support of such attrocities.

If others want to argue that salvation is in the form of belonging to the correct earthly political club, so be it. But everything I read in the Gospels tells me otherwise. I cannot serve two masters, I must try to answer always to God. This makes it impossible for me to be a party loyalist of any kind.

 

[dmelosi]

Then why are you so intent on proving that one group of people is more gracious and giving than another? What passage in the Gospel is inspiring you?

I am sorry that pointing out that your citiations state the opposite of your point makes you feel attacked. But you, like most others here, are missing my point.

The way I see it, this whole subject is not remotely Christian. Trying to affiliate grace with a particular political philosophy or party is awfully self rightous. Further, it requires making moral condemnations of others in broad, stereotypical terms. This seems particular wrong to me as Luke predominates our Gospel readings.

In the Gospels, the answer to the question of salvation is always the same. Moral relativism, that is, judging one’s own actions in comparisons to others, is also always condemned as a yard stick which is of no concern to God.

Look at the point that alluded estesbob. If we create a construct where we associate our political beliefs directly with faith, why shouldn’t God confront us with that standard? If our best arguments at the gates of heaven are our ‘good works’ in the form of our politics, why shouldn’t we be held accountable for all the results of those votes?

I know I will be on my knees, begging. And I don’t relish the idea of pointing out, say, the ‘partial birth abortion ban’ as a postive from my life, only to be confronted with images of a 50 year old man being beaten to death in a sleeping bag, a terrorist suspect being tortured and killed by crucifixion, or a pregnant woman gunned down at a checkpoint in a war of choice - then asked to defend my support of such attrocities.

If others want to argue that salvation is in the form of belonging to the correct earthly political club, so be it. But everything I read in the Gospels tells me otherwise. I cannot serve two masters, I must try to answer always to God. This makes it impossible for me to be a party loyalist of any kind.

The entire problem with your arguments are that the way you equate abortion with killing a 50 year old man or gunning down a pregnant woman. I don’t know of anyone who thinks it is ok to kill a 50 year old man or its ok to gun down a pregnant woman.

What your arguments are doing is making it that much easier for a person on the fence or those that do support politicians who promote abortion to ease their conscience. There are many that seem to think killing the most innocent is ok.

No matter how you try to justify (self justify perhaps?) Pro-Life is the opposite of Pro-Choice. You can continue to argue and twist and try to cloud, but pro-life is anti abortion.

 

[YADA]

Then why are you so intent on proving that one group of people is more gracious and giving than another? The way I see it, this whole subject is not remotely Christian. Trying to affiliate grace with a particular political philosophy or party is awfully self rightous.

To take a defense I made of a group and then smear me lacks a certain christian character, yet I never insinuated that you are not Christian…
I am not trying to affiliate grace with a particular party…I was responding to a generalized attack against conservatives by goofyjim as being uncaring and not “putting their money where their mouth is”…

And then Archbishop Levada responded to 48 Pro-Choice politicians:

It is important to clarify this important point. On the one hand one finds people who develop “scorecards” of Catholic teaching, on which a “pro-choice” politician who supports many important aspects of Catholic social teaching, but is pro-abortion, will get a “high” mark of 80% or 90% support for Catholic teaching. At the same time, a “prolife” politician who is also pro-death penalty, pro-Iraq war, etc., will be ranked “low” on a “support for Catholic teaching” index. The implication here is that all Catholic teaching has the same “rank” in terms of its obligation upon the Catholic conscience.

It is true that the accusation of “single issue” politics is intended to marginalize the accused from the political mainstream of American life, where there are so many important issues of concern to the creation and maintenance of a just and beneficent society. Since the concern is raised about Catholics [and especially bishops] falling into the “single issue” trap, it might be useful to recognize the reality of our political choices. While most of us are concerned about a fairly broad range of issues, we tend to become particularly energetic about a few: environment, housing, health care, war and peace, abortion.

Parenthetically, since the letter was signed by 48 Democratic members of Congress, it may not be out of place here to recall a recent example of “single issue” politics offered by the Democratic presidential campaign. In the press reports about a rumored invitation to Republican Sen. John McCain to become a running-mate for Vice President on the Democratic ticket, the single condition for acceptance by McCain was that he would guarantee he would not appoint any judge who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision!

Catholic social teaching covers a broad range of important issues. But among these the teaching on abortion holds a unique place. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to disagree with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Bush has done much to facilitate Life issues, while he is not perfect [or as perfect as you are SoCalRC] Bush has done enormously more in his presidency than the democratic party has in 35 years to protect the unborn.

Now individual pro-life democrats [independents, green, republican] are to be supported and encouraged…Pro-abortion candidates be they republican, democrat, green, libertarian or independent] should not be supported. Parties; any party whose plat forms are anti life - pro abortion should not be supported

Regretably, it is a fact that the platform of the Democratic Party is opposed to Church teaching and they are [as Archbishop Levada noted] a "single issue’ pro-abortion party…that is a fact. It is un-Christian to support those who openly support the unlimited taking of human life through abortion and euthanasia. You may not like that pointed out but it does not change the fact.

And that conservatives are not the devil incarnate [while you may hate to admit it] and they 'generally are more 'Pro-Life" iwhich was the only reason I discussed ‘good works and charity’…

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t know of anyone who thinks it is ok to kill a 50 year old man or its ok to gun down a pregnant woman.

Yes you do. Look at the subject title. If you support George Bush, you support torture, rendition, and Christian persecution in Iraq. The first two are official policy, the last one is inferred from the White House refusal to consider recommendations from the USCCB last year, or requests made directly from the Pope to the President earlier this year.

We are aiding the very Sunni groups killing Christians and driving hundreds of thousdands from their homes. Against, I might add, the express wishes of Iraq’s own government. Similiar to our using puplic ‘hush’ money to cover up the drunken murder and mayhem of Blackwater, another activity which Iraq’s government objects to.

The ‘problem’ is that you want to redefine pro-life to a very narrow definition. But once one argues that a certain vote best reflects ‘pro life’, then all the consequences of that vote, in Catholic ‘pro life’ terms, become relevant.

 

[SoCalRC]

Bush has done much to facilitate Life issues, while he is not perfect…

What, precisely, has he done? Aside from telling you what you want to hear.

[or as perfect as you are SoCalRC]

I think you must be a little confused. The last time I checked, you were the one asserting that you personally belonged to a more giving and pro life group than others. Or, are you just demonstrating your Christian charity?

Bush has done enormously more in his presidency than the democratic party has in 35 years to protect the unborn.

Really? I guess I was mistaken because abortions dropped sharply during the Clinton presidency and the trend has moved in the wrong directly under Bush, as has poverty and a number of other issues that Christ felt worth mentioning in his earthly ministry. But I am relieved to hear this, since Bush has such a terrible record on euthanasia, another infallible teaching of the Church. Or, do you argue that the Church is wrong and that removing nutrition and hydration from PVS patients who simply cannot pay is not “direct euthanasia”?

And that conservatives are not the devil incarnate [while you may hate to admit it] and they 'generally are more 'Pro-Life" iwhich was the only reason I discussed ‘good works and charity’…

Again, you seem to be confused. Looking back, you are the only one who has asserted your moral superiority. My point is that I am called not to judge. I have pointed out that reading your own links is not your strong point, but if you look back you will see that I attributed that to human nature, not a shortcoming of yours.

I do find it interesting that your definition of pro life seems to not just be abortion, but sole attention to secular law regarding abortion. In other words, democratic stances on Roe v. Wade prohibit them from being “pro life”, but the GOP, including the White House, actually supporting a system of human trafficing, slave labor, and forced abortions for profit (see the USCCB findings on Saipan, as well as the testimony and evidence in the Abramof conviction), does not disqualify them from being pro life.

It was “conservatives” after all, who supposedly called upon Fred Thompson to enter the GOP presidential race. If true, then fact that he personally profitted by lobbying for abortionists seemingly does not interfere with his conservative credentials.

One last note, part of your quote looks like a quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger’s famous letter to the Bishops. It is important to note that the Cardinal was distinguishing between prudential and infallible teachings. Notice that direct teachings from Christ are not mentioned. In other words, we cannot ‘disagree’ on Christ’s express statements about our obligation to the poor.

This is good, because there is a strong statistical link between poverty and abortion in the US. Notice last Sunday’s gospel. If we simply ignore the desperation of others, Christ says we are damned. That leads me to think that it might be even worse to be partially responsible for the desperation. Who knows, God might even hold us partially responsible for their desperate acts…

 

[dmelosi]

Yes you do. Look at the subject title. If you support George Bush, you support torture, rendition, and Christian persecution in Iraq. The first two are official policy, the last one is inferred from the White House refusal to consider recommendations from the USCCB last year, or requests made directly from the Pope to the President earlier this year.

We are aiding the very Sunni groups killing Christians and driving hundreds of thousdands from their homes. Against, I might add, the express wishes of Iraq’s own government. Similiar to our using puplic ‘hush’ money to cover up the drunken murder and mayhem of Blackwater, another activity which Iraq’s government objects to.

The ‘problem’ is that you want to redefine pro-life to a very narrow definition. But once one argues that a certain vote best reflects ‘pro life’, then all the consequences of that vote, in Catholic ‘pro life’ terms, become relevant.

Now the truth comes out. You are so anti-Bush that YOU are the one trying to redefine pro life. I am pro-life first and foremost, no matter how you try to cloud the issue to vote your politics.

Pro-life is anti abortion, no matter how much you try to change the meaning so you can vote your way.

 

[SoCalRC]

Now the truth comes out. You are so anti-Bush that YOU are the one trying to redefine pro life. I am pro-life first and foremost, no matter how you try to cloud the issue to vote your politics.

There is no ‘truth’ to come out, I wear it on my sleeve. I vote against torture, I vote against slavery, I vote against unnecessary exploitation and I vote for social justice. I vote against euthanasia, I vote against abortion, but I also vote against starvation as well.

You see, I no longer convince myself that ‘pragmantic’ is good enough. I have accepted that Christ’s teachings are a model for life, not just wishful thinking or ‘too altruistic’ to be practical in the ‘real world’.

That means I now vote every aspect of my faith just as I try to live it. Am I perfect? Of course not, but I have reached a point in my life where I no longer try to rationalize not at least trying.

Pro-life is anti abortion, no matter how much you try to change the meaning so you can vote your way.

I think you and YADA seem to share the habit of projecting. Notice how YADA was so certain I was criticising conservatives. But, if you actually read the thread, it was all about YADA claiming the inherent superiority of conservatives. All that I did was point out that YADA’s own citation said the opposite, that religion was the great equalizer in giving, not politics.

Now take your case. I’ve said I’m for voting for Catholic values across the board and that pro life is best expressed by actually reducing abortions and euthanasia. You are the one that is assigning party affiliations and motives.

I have no particular hatred of GW Bush now. If anything, he helped me reconnect with my faith. Back in 2000 I did the usual ‘pragmatic vote for a Republican’ even though my gut told me he is not a man of my values.

You see, I know George’s ilk well. I objected to Vietnam because of my faith. But I still felt compelled to enlist and did two tours as a medic. So 2000 meant voting for not one, but two men, who fit a mold I have long despised - cowards who claimed to support a war they would not fight.

The turning point for me was probably 9/11. On 9/11 I told my employees they did not have to come in (or stay), but I went downtown and made a point of spending the day in my office - looking straight out my window, across the library and at the building that gets blown up in the movie INDEPENDANCE DAY. To my way of thinking, when we run and hide, terrorists win. Bush’s disappearing act that day, or his dazed MY PET GOAT video we saw later, surprised me not a wit. Though I did not vote for him in 2004, it was no surprise for me to see John Kerry furious on 9/11 about the congressional offices being shut down. As a fellow vet, who had also enlisted with doubts, I knew his sentiments were sincere.

Everything since then, Iraq, Katrina, the endless corruption scandals, has shown me the error of my ‘pragmatism’. We are called to do what is right, not what is seemingly expedient.

So I know vote for candidates who are as close to my faith as possible. I don’t care if they are bottom tier or not. A lot of folks aren’t there yet, but look what it has gotten them.

Abortions and poverty are trending the wrong way. Gay marriage is on the rise. We are in a state of war the President claims will be perpetual, and the party we have carried water for since Reagan is rewarding us, how? By running a bunch of abortionists with the family values of tom cats for President? By protecting pedophiles and sexual predators in their ranks? By profiteering from forced abortions in Saipan?

The way I see it, the GOP serves two masters. Big business and social conservatives. One has seen everything from deregulation and tax breaks, to the largest corporate profits in history. The way I see it, we get lip service.

I’ve decided that I, myself, will no longer serve two masters. Others, like you, seem to want to argue that serving one is like serving the other.

It is not my place to judge, but I think you are wrong. Sooner or later I believe you are going to have to pick the one you love most, just as the GOP has shown us which master it truly defers to. The biggest reason I believe what I do is your concern about the definition of pro life.

Think about it, you are complaining that I am expanding the definition of pro life to include euthanasia, poverty related death among children, and, gasp, actually reducing the number of abortions instead of just talking about them…

Please, read EVANGELIUM VITAE - Gospel of Life. Tell me how it is somehow fair to expand pro life in a Catholic context. Expansion is no problem to me, since I now vote all my values. If it is a problem for you, perhaps you should ask yourself why.

 

[dmelosi]

There is no ‘truth’ to come out, I wear it on my sleeve. I vote against torture, I vote against slavery, I vote against unnecessary exploitation and I vote for social justice. I vote against euthanasia, I vote against abortion, but I also vote against starvation as well.

You see, I no longer convince myself that ‘pragmantic’ is good enough. I have accepted that Christ’s teachings are a model for life, not just wishful thinking or ‘too altruistic’ to be practical in the ‘real world’.

That means I now vote every aspect of my faith just as I try to live it. Am I perfect? Of course not, but I have reached a point in my life where I no longer try to rationalize not at least trying.

I think you and YADA seem to share the habit of projecting. Notice how YADA was so certain I was criticising conservatives. But, if you actually read the thread, it was all about YADA claiming the inherent superiority of conservatives. All that I did was point out that YADA’s own citation said the opposite, that religion was the great equalizer in giving, not politics.

Now take your case. I’ve said I’m for voting for Catholic values across the board and that pro life is best expressed by actually reducing abortions and euthanasia. You are the one that is assigning party affiliations and motives.

I have no particular hatred of GW Bush now. If anything, he helped me reconnect with my faith. Back in 2000 I did the usual ‘pragmatic vote for a Republican’ even though my gut told me he is not a man of my values.

You see, I know George’s ilk well. I objected to Vietnam because of my faith. But I still felt compelled to enlist and did two tours as a medic. So 2000 meant voting for not one, but two men, who fit a mold I have long despised - cowards who claimed to support a war they would not fight.

The turning point for me was probably 9/11. On 9/11 I told my employees they did not have to come in (or stay), but I went downtown and made a point of spending the day in my office - looking straight out my window, across the library and at the building that gets blown up in the movie INDEPENDANCE DAY. To my way of thinking, when we run and hide, terrorists win. Bush’s disappearing act that day, or his dazed MY PET GOAT video we saw later, surprised me not a wit. Though I did not vote for him in 2004, it was no surprise for me to see John Kerry furious on 9/11 about the congressional offices being shut down. As a fellow vet, who had also enlisted with doubts, I knew his sentiments were sincere.

Everything since then, Iraq, Katrina, the endless corruption scandals, has shown me the error of my ‘pragmatism’. We are called to do what is right, not what is seemingly expedient.

So I know vote for candidates who are as close to my faith as possible. I don’t care if they are bottom tier or not. A lot of folks aren’t there yet, but look what it has gotten them.

Abortions and poverty are trending the wrong way. Gay marriage is on the rise. We are in a state of war the President claims will be perpetual, and the party we have carried water for since Reagan is rewarding us, how? By running a bunch of abortionists with the family values of tom cats for President? By protecting pedophiles and sexual predators in their ranks? By profiteering from forced abortions in Saipan?

The way I see it, the GOP serves two masters. Big business and social conservatives. One has seen everything from deregulation and tax breaks, to the largest corporate profits in history. The way I see it, we get lip service.

I’ve decided that I, myself, will no longer serve two masters. Others, like you, seem to want to argue that serving one is like serving the other.

It is not my place to judge, but I think you are wrong. Sooner or later I believe you are going to have to pick the one you love most, just as the GOP has shown us which master it truly defers to. The biggest reason I believe what I do is your concern about the definition of pro life.

Think about it, you are complaining that I am expanding the definition of pro life to include euthanasia, poverty related death among children, and, gasp, actually reducing the number of abortions instead of just talking about them…

Please, read EVANGELIUM VITAE - Gospel of Life. Tell me how it is somehow fair to expand pro life in a Catholic context. Expansion is no problem to me, since I now vote all my values. If it is a problem for you, perhaps you should ask yourself why.

Your hatred of Bush is evident no matter how you try to fool yourself.

Everyone including you and I can do things to help the hungry, to help the poor…everything that Christ taught us to.

But we cannot stop abortion when the party you so vigoursly defend insists and fights tooth and nail to make it seem normal. Your arguments do the same thing. That is why it is so important to stop supporting the pro abortion politicians regardless of the party.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Your hatred of Bush is evident no matter how you try to fool yourself.

Everyone including you and I can do things to help the hungry, to help the poor…everything that Christ taught us to.

But we cannot stop abortion when the party you so vigoursly defend insists and fights tooth and nail to make it seem normal. Your arguments do the same thing. That is why it is so important to stop supporting the pro abortion politicians regardless of the party.

Why, oh why is it that every time someone speaks the truth about the Republican party, they are automatically “defending” the Democrats? Have things become that partisan? I didn’t see a single line in SoCalRC’s post defending Democrats or their ideology. I simply saw a criticism of Bush and the Republicans, nothing more.

 

[dmelosi]

Why, oh why is it that every time someone speaks the truth about the Republican party, they are automatically “defending” the Democrats? Have things become that partisan? I didn’t see a single line in SoCalRC’s post defending Democrats or their ideology. I simply saw a criticism of Bush and the Republicans, nothing more.

I take it that you are saying that SoCalRC is talking about the Republican party in his posts?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I take it that you are saying that SoCalRC is talking about the Republican party in his posts?

Seems pretty obvious to me considering s/he is pretty specific.

 

[MollyF]

Here is a thought to put out there. I am sorry I haven’t read every response, it is a big thread so here is my two cents. Every human being has the right to LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is not a religious right but a natural right. You don’t have to believe in God to believe in this right. If there is no abortion, then the human race will hold human life more sacred. If the human race holds human life more sacred, then there will be less killing (war, gang violence, kids killing kids). If there is less killing then the world will see issues differently and become a better, moral, society, world. That is the point. Is this a realistic goal? YES if we can end abortion and then go from there. This is the MOST IMPORTANT issue because everything is affected by abortion, evil. EVERYTHING! Think about it.

 

[Philothea53]

Really? I guess I was mistaken because abortions dropped sharply during the Clinton presidency and the trend has moved in the wrong directly under Bush,

WRONG! You’ve been shown before where this was a lie - why do you continue to say it as truth?

 

[dmelosi]

Why, oh why is it that every time someone speaks the truth about the Republican party, they are automatically “defending” the Democrats? Have things become that partisan? I didn’t see a single line in SoCalRC’s post defending Democrats or their ideology. I simply saw a criticism of Bush and the Republicans, nothing more.

If you read through the threads how he has defended the democrats, it is very obvious.