Democratic Strategists Issue Memo on Loss of Catholics

[delcor]

gilliam:

I know no such thing.

Boy, where did you get this?

The slaughtering of Iraqi children? Are you talking about the terrorists who use them as human shields, and put them in “safe houses” to drag out their bodies after they incite an incident and then run and hide in them (if no mosque is available)?

Never mind, I guess I am talking to a pro-Baathist pro-Saddam loyalist here. You should tell us that from the start and save us a lot of time.

I came here to learn about Christianity, not to argue with an obvious partisan who can’t decipher partisan talking points from reality.

What a ridiculous thing for you to say, that I’m Pro-Saddam. You’re obviously pro-Satan if you think slaughtering children is okay in your version of the Bible.

Goodnight.

 

[Isidore_AK]

Who is slaughtering children? Our soldiers? I don’t think so.
Where are you getting your information? Pro-Islam web sites?

If you think that our military would intentionally kill children, you need to have your head examined! Have you ever served in the military? Do you know anything that isn’t anti-war propaganda?!?

I’m sorry, but this is ignorant beyond belief…yes, there have been some unintentional civilian casualties, but there are always civilian casualties in war. It terribly saddening, but its hard to avoid when your enemies hide behind civilians.

Who is it that fights from mosques? Who hid their munitions inside of schools? Which side is hiding among the civilian population and killing their own people? Not us. Not the US.

Delcor, the bank called. Your reality check bounced…

 

[masondoggy]

Isidore_AK:

Delcor, the bank called. Your reality check bounced…

That’s a good one…I’m gonna have to use that sometime!

 

[Brad]

Della:

Proof that the tide is turning. Thanks be to God! All we need do is remain faithful and continue to pray, pray, pray!

It is turning in the Church but has a long way to go. We have to also bring the Church to the non-Churched so that the tide can turn completely in the nations.

 

[Richardols]

Isidore_AK:

there are always civilian casualties in war. It terribly saddening, but its hard to avoid when your enemies hide behind civilians.

Yeah, always civilian casualties. As we used to say in Vietnam, “Sorry 'bout that.” Right?

Hide behind civilians? I haven’t heard of the Insurgency advancing against the Americans behind a line of civilians. I thought that their stock in trade is the use of IEDs.

 

[Brad]

delcor:

I came here to learn about Christianity, not to argue with an obvious partisan who can’t decipher partisan talking points from reality.

What a ridiculous thing for you to say, that I’m Pro-Saddam. You’re obviously pro-Satan if you think slaughtering children is okay in your version of the Bible.

Goodnight.

Talk about being partisan. Which post did you NOT mention “slaughtering children”? This is either completely ignorant or completely partisan on your part as you ignore the 500,000 minimum slaughtered by Sadaam and the millions tortured and raped.

 

[Richardols]

Lisa N:

The sad thing is that the Democrat party is SO beholden to the proaborts that it will be extremely difficult to extract themselves.

Rome wasn’t built in a day. You’re right. It won’t be easy and those of us who are both Democrats and pro-lifers know it. But, it isn’t impossible and we’ll also be watching to see how much of his promises Bush actually delivers to the Republican pro-lifers.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Rome wasn’t built in a day. You’re right. It won’t be easy and those of us who are both Democrats and pro-lifers know it. But, it isn’t impossible and we’ll also be watching to see how much of his promises Bush actually delivers to the Republican pro-lifers.

If you voted for Kerry, you cannot honestly call yourself a pro-lifer.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

you ignore the 500,000 minimum slaughtered by Sadaam and the millions tortured and raped.

Two wrongs make a right? I agree that delcor’s comment is over the top, but you seem to be saying that if U.S. forces had deliberately killed any civilians, we can overlook it because Saddam was far worse.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

If you voted for Kerry, you cannot honestly call yourself a pro-lifer.

And, if one voted for Bush, one cannot honestly himself a pro-lifer either because Bush accepts abortion, subject to “the three exceptions.”

The only honestly pro-life candidate in the last election was the fellow from the Constitutional Party.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

And, if one voted for Bush, one cannot honestly himself a pro-lifer either because Bush accepts abortion, subject to “the three exceptions.”

The only honestly pro-life candidate in the last election was the fellow from the Constitutional Party.

Nonsense.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

Nonsense.

Don’t believe me, but Bush, in fact, accepts “three exception” abortion. And, the only 100% pro-life presidential candidate was the Constitutional Party candidate. You’d better do a bit of reading to confirm what I said.

 

[Lisa_N]

Richardols:

Two wrongs make a right? I agree that delcor’s comment is over the top, but you seem to be saying that if U.S. forces had deliberately killed any civilians, we can overlook it because Saddam was far worse.

Did the Coalition forces deliberately kill (known) civilians? Not aware of that at all. Certainly the insurgents, patterning after Hamas specialize in killing innocents. And while there will always be collateral damage in any war, having lived through both Korea and Vietnam (not to mention watching hours of WWII footage) I have to say this is the most carefully staged and crafted war in history. Does that make it excusable to kill innocents? No. It’s never excusable and the carnage of past wars has made us understand that we must avoid killing civilians to the extent possible.

I don’t know why it’s so difficult for some to see the difference between the deliberate targeting of civilians and the careless use of explosives that cause unnecessary death and those horrible and sad situations where someone was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Lisa N

 

[Richardols]

Lisa N:

Did the Coalition forces deliberately kill (known) civilians? Not aware of that at all.

We know that some American soldiers were recently court-martialed and found guilty of deliberately killing Iraqi civilians. That wasn’t “collateral damage.” And, even if there were no trials, we know that some innocent civilians were deliberately killed by the Allies in World War II, that the same happened in Korea, and everyone knows about the deliberate killing of innocent civilians in Vietnam. Why would you assume that the same could not have happened in Iraq this time? Not to say that it was widespread, but that it happened, even by one platoon of soldiers.

 

[BillyT92679]

Richardols:

And, if one voted for Bush, one cannot honestly himself a pro-lifer either because Bush accepts abortion, subject to “the three exceptions.”

The only honestly pro-life candidate in the last election was the fellow from the Constitutional Party.

That is correct actually, but Bush is the closest to a completely Pro-Life president we have had alongside Reagan.

 

[Richardols]

BillyT92679:

That is correct actually, but Bush is the closest to a completely Pro-Life president we have had alongside Reagan.

Reagan??? He legalized abortion when he was Governor of California!!!

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Don’t believe me, but Bush, in fact, accepts “three exception” abortion. And, the only 100% pro-life presidential candidate was the Constitutional Party candidate. You’d better do a bit of reading to confirm what I said.

And you don’t think those “three exceptions” have more to do with electability than personal belief? Irregardless, how do those “three exceptions” measure up against Kerry’s promotion of no exceptions and free abortions?

 

[Philip_P]

Brad:

And you don’t think those “three exceptions” have more to do with electability than personal belief? Irregardless, how do those “three exceptions” measure up against Kerry’s promotion of no exceptions and free abortions?

So its okay to care about electablity if you’re Republican, but if you do that as a Democrat you’re a flip-flopper? Well I think the lesson here is obvious; to win back the country, Democrats just need to switch their party labels and they’ll have immunity to do whatever they want.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

how do those “three exceptions” measure up against Kerry’s promotion of no exceptions and free abortions?

We measure each man by our standards, not by their comparison to each other, and thus neither is pro-life the way the Church defines pro-life.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

gilliam:

The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by presenting themselves as one who "elieves in a woman’s right to choose but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed, including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption."
christianity.com/cultureoflife

So they’re not really changing their stance on abortion, just trying to appear sympathetic to all sides. Talk about having your cake & eating it too :nope:.

Its funny how they think pro-life people are so easily misled. All the pro-life people I know are pro-life because they have thought the issue through instead of just spewing rhetoric. We’re not stupid sheep ya’ know.