Democrats for Life?

[estesbob]

When you cut education programs, public transportion, food programs it affects the poor.

No one has cut any of these. So I as you again -who is sacrificing the poor? (Other than the poor who never escape the womb -but then we know which party favors sacrificing them)

 

[melensdad]

I work in Canada and Germany on a daily basis and ask this question to many Canadians and Germans they say that is simply not true.

They say “yeah sure it is not perfect but hey at least when I am out of a job or working part time as a student I am insured”

When I was a kid we had Black & White TV. Some of the neighbors had color. I didn’t know how good color TV was because I never saw it. Same with the socialized health care, the people who have it are like me as a kid with Black & White TV. I didn’t realize how bad it was because it was all I knew.

I have a Canadian friend. He and I share a problem. We both have kidney stones. What took me 3 days to get fixed took him 6 weeks of lost wages, travel of over 200 miles, and lots of pain. Yes, he has “free” health care (actually high taxes) and I have private insurance (deducted from my paycheck every week) but at least I got treated, wasn’t on narcotic pain killers for weeks and didn’t miss 6 weeks of pay . . . which is also a cost that needs to be calculated.

I know of no right wingers who want to remove the free health care that is currently provided to the poorest people here. Remember, we do guarantee free emergency treatment AND we also provide health care to children and the poor under various social programs.

You seem intent to push everything to the extreme. You showed that in your environmental statements, you imply it with healthcare. We don’t need socialized medicine for everyone to care for our poor. We can care for our poor without totally screwing up the worlds best health care system that already provides wonderful care to the vast majority of Americans. It will be expensive any way you cut it. But we don’t need to throw out the whole system to care for the needy.

 

[josephdavid]

Who is denying anyone life saving healhcare?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that the Democrats feel the best way to cut down on the number of uninsured is to kill them in the womb?

Please do not accuse me of being on the side of Democrat and calling me a baby killer. Yes you are mearly asking a question but in my opinion that was a suggestion that I am a baby killer. WRONG again Bob do not ever ever again accuse me of that.

I will say this recently a woman had died of breast cancer. She lost insurance because she could not work and her husband had lost her job. The state would not clear her for the Chemo that she needed to save her life. She died. How sad is that?

 

[estesbob]

, Yes in the direct path of migrating Elk which would interupt their breeding grounds which also those few thousand natives rely on food source. That is pretty strong of you to say. care to elaborate how I am stating this falsely.

I do agree with you the Prius, E85 is not a solution. I suggest we invest more in conversation with better fuel standards, use diesel instead of gasoline buring engines. E85 was a knee jerk reaction to gasoline prices with out considering the side effect.
Again conservatioin and public transportation is best way but we need to invest in this. Invest in developement of cleaner and more fuel effecient trasnportion.

So you oppose politicans who are in favor of disrupting a few elk but support politicans who support the termination of 1.2 million children a year?

 

[josephdavid]

Yes, he has “free” health care (actually high taxes) and I have private insurance (deducted from my paycheck every week) but at least I got treated, wasn’t on narcotic pain killers for weeks and didn’t miss 6 weeks of pay . . . which is also a cost that needs to be calculated.

majority of Germans and Canadians do not complain about their high taxes towards healtcare and infustructure.

Remember, we do guarantee free emergency treatment AND we also provide health care to children and the poor under various social programs.

Except for the 46 million.

You seem intent to push everything to the extreme. You showed that in your environmental statements, you imply it with healthcare. .

Sure I do because environmental problems lead to health problems which puts a strain on our healthcare system. Same as obesiety with horrible diets is putting a strain on our health care.
With ever action causes a reaction. I get sick of politicians point on single issues as a cause or solution of a problem when it is so much more expansive.
Same with aborition. Look at majority of who is having abortions. The poor. I think it is about 67% or more of the abortion clinics or abortions performed in the U.S. is in poverty stricken areas. So to deny that perhaps poverty has something to do with why so many abortions is beaing near sighted and not looking at the big picture. Not saying poverty is the sole cause but one of the causes.

 

[josephdavid]

So you oppose politicans who are in favor of disrupting a few elk but support politicans who support the termination of 1.2 million children a year?

Bob, where did I say there was a justification of either. but where do you justify one life over the other.
Furthermore Bob if you look at all my posts in my thread I have said BOTH parties have come up short in being Pro-Life.

But go ahead keep bearing false witness and suggest I am a baby killer.

 

[melensdad]

, Yes in the direct path of migrating Elk which would interupt their breeding grounds which also those few thousand natives rely on food source. That is pretty strong of you to say. care to elaborate how I am stating this falsely.

The same baseless charges were proved wrong all along the ALCAN highway and all along ALESKAs routes and all along the Alaskan pipeline. Even the animal rights groups had to admit that. Try again.

Again conservatioin and public transportation is best way but we need to invest in this. Invest in developement of cleaner and more fuel effecient trasnportion.

Where I live we don’t even have access to high speed internet how are you going to get public transportation out here? In fact public transportation doesn’t work well in most of our cities and in none of our rural areas. While public transport works well in much of Europe, the land mass of those nations is so small in relation to the population density that it works well, but that type of situation does not exist in most of the US outside of a few areas of New England/New York.

All I hear are hollow responses from you that sound ideal, but that, in reality don’t work well. In any case those issues are LESS important than LIFE issues according to our Church. Our Church states that LIFE issues are the critical issues, the ones that are of grave importance. Every Democratic leader is pro-Abortion, pro-gay agenda, pro-embryonic stem cell research. Those are the issues our Church asks us to oppose. You are applying moral relativism, which our Church also opposes, to elevate social issues to a level of importance higher than they deserve and therefore are rationalizing your choices to support that which we consider immoral.

I still have my principles. I can’t do what you seem to promote.

 

[melensdad]

majority of Germans and Canadians do not complain about their high taxes towards healtcare and infustructure.

Please provide evidence of this.

Look at majority of who is having abortions. The poor. I think it is about 67% or more of the abortion clinics or abortions performed in the U.S. is in poverty stricken areas. **So to deny **that perhaps poverty has something to do with why so many abortions is beaing near sighted and not looking at the big picture. Not saying poverty is the sole cause but one of the causes.

You again suggest things that nobody here has stated. Why?

 

[melensdad]

. . .if you look at all my posts in my thread I have said BOTH parties have come up short in being Pro-Life.

But go ahead keep bearing false witness and suggest I am a baby killer.

The GOP is far from perfect, but you have suggested they are as bad as the Democrats by your inuendo and inferences. To vote for the Democratic leadership in the US is to vote for killing babies. You constant apply relativistic arguments, something that our faith says is wrong, to justify your support of Democrats. I therefore, think your statement that “estesbob” is bearing false witness is a baseless charge and believe you owe him an apology.

 

[josephdavid]

The same baseless charges were proved wrong all along the ALCAN highway and all along ALESKAs routes and all along the Alaskan pipeline. Even the animal rights groups had to admit that. Try again.

Can you state factual reports to state your claim that my points are baseless?

In fact public transportation doesn’t work well in most of our cities and in none of our rural areas. While public transport works well in much of Europe, the land mass of those nations is so small in relation to the population density that it works well, but that type of situation does not exist in most of the US outside of a few areas of New England/New York

. Why not? Why not fix it? Or just we give up and not return to being a nation who was innovative?

All I hear are hollow responses from you that sound ideal, but that, in reality don’t work well.

Why do you feel that way? All you do is say I am wrong not say why I am wrong?

In any case those issues are LESS important than LIFE issues according to our Church. Our Church states that LIFE issues are the critical issues, the ones that are of grave importance.

Yes the Church with in Scripture and CCC states ALL LIFE is important from womb to tomb.

Every Democratic leader is pro-Abortion, pro-gay agenda, pro-embryonic stem cell research

.
Every Democrat? Sorry you are wrong just as some one would sall ALL Republicans are Pro-Life, Anti Embroyonic Stem Cell Research.

Those are the issues our Church asks us to oppose

.
really What did I say and where? I never said to anyone to vote for a Pro-Abortion poltician or anti-life agenda. No wheres.

You are applying moral relativism, which our Church also opposes, to elevate social issues to a level of importance higher than they deserve and therefore are rationalizing your choices to support that which we consider immoral.
.

Where did I say social issues are more important than abortion issues? Never did. I said ALL ISSUES pertaining to life both in the womb and the tomb are important and our polticians fall short in both areas.

 

[josephdavid]

The GOP is far from perfect, but you have suggested they are as bad as the Democrats by your inuendo and inferences. To vote for the Democratic leadership in the US is to vote for killing babies. You constant apply relativistic arguments, something that our faith says is wrong, to justify your support of Democrats. I therefore, think your statement that “estesbob” is bearing false witness is a baseless charge and believe you owe him an apology.

I owe him no apology he is suggestion I said kill babies and vote for Democrats. I never said there.

They are as bad as the Democrats and I never said one is worse than the other. I SAID BOTH fall short.

Being a father who watch his son die at birth such as I really takes great offense to some one who suggests I am ok with murdering babies.

 

[melensdad]

I owe him no apology he is suggestion I said kill babies and vote for Democrats. I never said there.

I’m sorry but he did no such thing. He asked a question and you did as you seem to do with all your replies, you over stretched.

Being a father who watch his son die at birth such as I really takes great offense to some one who suggests I am ok with murdering babies.

Well I am the father of a daughter who has an incurable disease and I am not asking the world to absolve me of my obligations. I’ve changed my whole life to better care for my daughter. What “estesbob” asked was not unreasonable, it was what it was, a question. Nobody who seems to support Democrats, not even you, answered it.

josephdavid:

melensdad:

In fact public transportation doesn’t work well in most of our cities and in none of our rural areas. While public transport works well in much of Europe, the land mass of those nations is so small in relation to the population density that it works well, but that type of situation does not exist in most of the US outside of a few areas of New England/New York

. Why not? Why not fix it? Or just we give up and not return to being a nation who was innovative?

Honestly how do you fix it? The reason that public transportation is effective is because areas have a high population density in a reasonably compact geographic area. That is the case in Europe. That is also the case in parts of New England/New York. But tell me sir, how can it work in Texas or Indiana or Utah or Alaska or Tennessee or either of the Dakotas? Even the cities in those states sprawl with far lower density than anywhere in New England/Europe. Heck there are more deer than people where I live. No way to “fix” public transportation when it doesn’t exist and when it would not even be practical to build because I’d have to drive miles just to get to train or bus or whatever you come up with.

josephdavid:

melensdad:

Every Democratic leader is pro-Abortion, pro-gay agenda, pro-embryonic stem cell research

Every Democrat? Sorry you are wrong just as some one would sall ALL Republicans are Pro-Life, Anti Embroyonic Stem Cell Research.

No, I didn’t say that. I said every Democratic leader. That would include Pelosi, Reid, the entire leadership of the DNC, every candidate running the their national primaries and the authors of their current party platform.

 

[chicago]

When looking at the PRESIDENTIAL offerings, those seem to be the choices…

It seems that this is part of where the distinction is perspective on these matters often comes into play.

Many people who want to talk about voting pro-life look only to the highest levels. Obviously, this is very important and can not be disregarded. But, as Tip O’Neil said, “All politics is local.” And, really, this is true.

Now, given, money is playing such an increasingly significant role that party leadership plays a greater factor in guiding the candidates supported.

Yet, even there, they are responsive to local factors in so far as they desire to see their own party’s candidates elected. If a pro-life Democrat gets nominated in his state for Senate, therefore, they aren’t going to abandon him by disinvesting, unless they honestly think he has no shot at winning the general election. And, typically, a party’s leaders do not want to challenge incumbents, but support them. So if you have a pro-life Democrat in place, somehow, he will continue to be supported financially for that office over time to keep things from getting nasty and divisive.

Further, generally (though not always, admittedly) candidates for higher office are those moving up from lower elected offices.

Ultimately, then, it returns to being able to work a politic from the bottom up. Which is to say that political parties are much more complex and larger than any prevailing consensus, party platform, major elected official, or even a president alone have to say about it. They are reliant upon a number of factors which must somehow work together towards collaboratively coalesing for a common good. Which is where there is always opportunity for positive growth, if we commit ourselves to working within the system as best as possible and blooming where we are planted in the concrete contexts that exist.

 

[chicago]

Where I live we don’t even have access to high speed internet how are you going to get public transportation out here? In fact public transportation doesn’t work well in most of our cities and in none of our rural areas.
While public transport works well in much of Europe, the land mass of those nations is so small in relation to the population density that it works well, but that type of situation does not exist in most of the US outside of a few areas of New England/New York.

Generally, if it doesn’t work well in the cities it is because of underfunding or lack of commitment and a cultural/poiltical viewpoint of it being “lowest common denominator” transit for the poor rather than something of economic development and value generally for the community.

In suburban communities part of the problem is that the cities and subdivisions usually aren’t laid out right for transit (poor planning, essentially, which escalated the auto as the be all and end all.)

In rural areas, there is certainly a need for greater personal vehicular transportation. However, we USED to have a significant rail network which supported these communities which were most often clustered along such lines of transportation. This has sadly been forsaken (unlike in many other countries which recognize rail as a crucial part of the overall transportation network.)

The more compact communities are, the less need there is for personal transportation vehicles. This is the sort of thing which can and should be promoted at any and all levels, whether city/suburban/or rural. It is no irony that the developers who are now having such problems selling their properties are those who built further out and more spread out from the natural city/suburban areas of the U.S.

Plainly, the escalation of the automobile to a central figure of our society has been a significant factor in undermining our culture and creating many problems.

All I hear are hollow responses from you that sound ideal, but that, in reality don’t work well.

Some would argue that this is essentially what those who damn the Democrats are doing, also.

I still have my principles. I can’t do what you seem to promote.

Isn’t this what EVERYONE would say on all sides of these issues?

 

[mary_bobo]

Please do not accuse me of being on the side of Democrat and calling me a baby killer. Yes you are mearly asking a question but in my opinion that was a suggestion that I am a baby killer. WRONG again Bob do not ever ever again accuse me of that.

I will say this recently a woman had died of breast cancer. She lost insurance because she could not work and her husband had lost her job. The state would not clear her for the Chemo that she needed to save her life. She died. How sad is that?

I am sure one can always find a case to support one’s opinion. The story you cite is indeed tragic. But you answered the question yourself, maybe without knowing it. The government would not clear the chemo for her. Perhaps she could have have COBRA. But IMO government is the last place to look for help.

I don’t think anyone called you a babykiller. If someone did, it is wrong. And by the way, in reading thru the threads, I have become aware of your personal tragedy. I am deeply sorry.

 

[estesbob]

Bob, where did I say there was a justification of either. but where do you justify one life over the other.
Furthermore Bob if you look at all my posts in my thread I have said BOTH parties have come up short in being Pro-Life.

But go ahead keep bearing false witness and suggest I am a baby killer.

One Party does evertying it can to make sure the other Party comes up short. One party thinks abortion is a sacred right the other sees it as abject evil. No comparison whatsoever and the fact that the party of death has compassion for a few elk does not wash the blood of millions off their hands.

BTW-a pro-abortion canidate who gets votes from a “pro-life” Catholic does just as much harm as one who gets votes from abortion supporters.

 

[estesbob]

I owe him no apology he is suggestion I said kill babies and vote for Democrats. I never said there.

I never said that-perhaps this overeaction is due to deep down guilt over supportng those who aid and abtette the slaughter of children?

They are as bad as the Democrats and I never said one is worse than the other. I SAID BOTH fall short.

Except one wants to stop abortion and the other wants us to pay for it.

Being a father who watch his son die at birth such as I really takes great offense to some one who suggests I am ok with murdering babies.

Then why do you empower those who do?

 

[estesbob]

Ultimately, then, it returns to being able to work a politic from the bottom up. Which is to say that political parties are much more complex and larger than any prevailing consensus, party platform, major elected official, or even a president alone have to say about it. They are reliant upon a number of factors which must somehow work together towards collaboratively coalesing for a common good. Which is where there is always opportunity for positive growth, if we commit ourselves to working within the system as best as possible and blooming where we are planted in the concrete contexts that exist.

Empty words Youve had 37 years during that time the Democrat Party has not budged on inch in their support of abortion-in fact they have become more radical. You dont end abortion by empowering those who support it

 

[estesbob]

Please do not accuse me of being on the side of Democrat and calling me a baby killer. Yes you are mearly asking a question but in my opinion that was a suggestion that I am a baby killer. WRONG again Bob do not ever ever again accuse me of that.

Nice feigned outrage but I never acused you of that. Would it be thatyou had as much outrage towards those who do support killing our children-instead of ourage, however, you give them your vote.

I

will say this recently a woman had died of breast cancer. She lost insurance because she could not work and her husband had lost her job. The state would not clear her for the Chemo that she needed to save her life. She died. How sad is that?

Ancedotal evidence proves nothing and no party or canidates supports inadequate health care. There is a valid political dispute on how to best imporve health care availabilty. Even if you were correct that the Democrat have the answer one must keep things in perspective-43 million uninsured does not compare with 50 million dead.

 

[tomarin]

Your best opportunity to influence your party is during the primaries. Since it doesn’t matter how you are registered when it comes to the general election you would be better off remaining a registered Democrat so you can vote in their primaries, and then find another way to vote in the general election, at least until they offer a pro-life candidate you can support.

Ender

i’ll take your advice under consideration, but i doubt very much the dems are going to nominate a pro-life candidate anytime soon. meanwhile, my conscience will not allow me to appear to be in support of the secularist things in their agenda or platform.

my grandfather was a democrat and also the most pious man i ever knew – a great role model. i wish it that it were still possible today to be both.