Democrats for Life?

[tomarin]

How about doing a little research on Ronald Reagan. I think you will find he was far from being a dunce. Read some of his early writings when he was President of the Screen Actors Guild and later. Hardly a dunce.

mary,

ok, i’ll take a look at his writings. but keep in mind also this is someone whose official biographer found him so dull (i mean that in both senses of the word) that he had to invent a fictional character who shared his own name in order to “jazz up” the biography.

 

[chicago]

You dont end abortion by empowering those who support it

I’ve never suggested otherwise. Indeed, my recommendation has been precisely the opposite: empowering those who oppose it.

I’d rather light one candle than curse the darkness.

 

[tomarin]

I’ve never suggested otherwise. Indeed, my recommendation has been precisely the opposite: empowering those who oppose it.

I’d rather light one candle than curse the darkness.

forgive me for saying so, but this sounds awfully polly-anna-ish.

 

[mary_bobo]

forgive me for saying so, but this sounds awfully polly-anna-ish.

Why say something that you feel you need to ask forgiveness for? I am sure there is a nicer way to say that. If we are truly pro-life, we have to start somewhere and Chicago has said what we all should be thinking and doing, polly-anna-ish or not.

 

[mary_bobo]

mary,

ok, i’ll take a look at his writings. but keep in mind also this is someone whose official biographer found him so dull (i mean that in both senses of the word) that he had to invent a fictional character who shared his own name in order to “jazz up” the biography.

Cute. I would far rather have a dull president than a flashy one (in both senses of the word). I repeat, read some of his writings. Those are not the musings of a dull person. Leave it to a liberal to slam a person when they disagree with his policy. Seems to be the mantra.

 

[josephdavid]

Cute. I would far rather have a dull president than a flashy one (in both senses of the word). I repeat, read some of his writings. Those are not the musings of a dull person. Leave it to a liberal to slam a person when they disagree with his policy. Seems to be the mantra.

And a conversative does not do same thing?

 

[estesbob]

I’ve never suggested otherwise. Indeed, my recommendation has been precisely the opposite: empowering those who oppose it.

I’d rather light one candle than curse the darkness.

As I said before if one is both pro-life and democrat they have not been able to vote for President since 1976.And as we saw with Harry Reid and Bob Casey even when the occasional pro-life democrat comes along they often put party discipline before life.

 

[chicago]

forgive me for saying so, but this sounds awfully polly-anna-ish.

Rather, I believe that what is Poly-anna-ish is to expect that the political environments in which people live will somehow change directions radically.

You must understand that in most communities throughout the country there really is little chance of great turnover from one party to the other. Instead, entrenched organizations tend to control certain areas to a large degree, even to the point of making sure to draw district lines to effect the solidification of legislative or congressional seats wherever possible. Politicans HATE swing districts, afterall.

Consequently, one must bloom wherever they are planted. If you live in a Republican controlled district, your opportunity is to work within the Republican Party system. If you live in a heavily Democratic controlled area (where no Republican even gets elected for long) the potential which exists is to build up as best as possible the Democratic rule with politicians of your own purview who can enlighten the way with a culture of life.

What good does it do for someone to, say, run as a Democrat in a Republican district where he knows that his candidacy will be an utter failure? Or for a Republican to run in a Democratic area where he will be laughed at, unheard, not taken seriously, and get slaughtered at the polls? Would it not be better for such a person (who might make an excellent candidate and leader) to attempt getting into office as a member of the local ruling party? Would this not present that person with a better opportunity to actually gain a political foothold and make gains for doing good?

I think that holds a lot better potential and value in making real change than simply griping about how little a party does for the good and condemning them will ever effect.

 

[chicago]

One Party does evertying it can to make sure the other Party comes up short.

Which is a trap which we ought not, also, fall into. Instead, we need to work together so that a culture of life can prevail through the collaboration of all parties!

 

[estesbob]

Which is a trap which we ought not, also, fall into. Instead, we need to work together so that a culture of life can prevail through the collaboration of all parties!

I am not going to waste my time trying to convince the leadership of the democrat Party that killing children is wrong. as I have said pro-life demorats have had 35 yers to change the party from within-the only result being the Democrat Party has become more radical in their views on child killing and has embraced more affronts to church teaching as core priniciples of their Paltfrom… The ONLY thing that will get their attention is when people quit making excuses for their behavior and quit voting for them.

 

[josephdavid]

I am not going to waste my time trying to convince the leadership of the democrat Party that killing children is wrong. as I have said pro-life demorats have had 35 yers to change the party from within-the only result being the Democrat Party has become more radical in their views on child killing and has embraced more affronts to church teaching as core priniciples of their Paltfrom… The ONLY thing that will get their attention is when people quit making excuses for their behavior and quit voting for them.

I agree Bob that is why I left the Democrat Party a long time ago but will not join the Republican Party because they quit making excuses for their behavior either. Sadly both parties are not Pro-Life and in many cases big business has the majority of them in their back pockets. Not all so there is a glimer of hope but majority are neither as a whole is consistent with ethics of life.

 

[estesbob]

I agree Bob that is why I left the Democrat Party a long time ago but will not join the Republican Party because they quit making excuses for their behavior either. Sadly both parties are not Pro-Life and in many cases big business has the majority of them in their back pockets. Not all so there is a glimer of hope but majority are neither as a whole is consistent with ethics of life.

If the republican party nominates a pro-abortion canidate I will leave them also. (at least for the Presidential elction). But flawed as they may be they are the best hope for brining this abject evil to an end.

 

[josephdavid]

If the republican party nominates a pro-abortion canidate I will leave them also. (at least for the Presidential elction). But flawed as they may be they are the best hope for brining this abject evil to an end.

To me both are abject of evil. One against not defending the defensless of the unborn and the other not defending the defensless of the born.
I do not believe we can value one higher than the other because all Life if precious.

 

[mary_bobo]

And a conversative does not do same thing?

Don’t think I said they did not. But I think if you will watch the posts here and listen to the various rantings in the media, you will see that the liberals more often than conservatives, criticize the person rather than the policy. When you say someone is dull, that is not criticizing the party that is a personal attack on the person. Since few of us have even met those we choose to personally attack, it comes across as a mantra. And IMO it does not show much maturity.

 

[chicago]

Don’t think I said they did not. But I think if you will watch the posts here and listen to the various rantings in the media, you will see that the liberals more often than conservatives, criticize the person rather than the policy. When you say someone is dull, that is not criticizing the party that is a personal attack on the person. Since few of us have even met those we choose to personally attack, it comes across as a mantra. And IMO it does not show much maturity.

And, for eight years, we heard nothing but personal character attacks against Clinton from the right. (Not that they weren’t largely deserving.) We still hear them about Hilary. Whoever is not in power will tend to attack he who is. It seems to just be human nature.

 

[melensdad]

And, for eight years, we heard nothing but personal character attacks against Clinton from the right. (Not that they weren’t largely deserving.) We still hear them about Hilary. Whoever is not in power will tend to attack he who is. It seems to just be human nature.

Actually I’m more than willing to point out the faults of both sides, but I also find that one side is far worse than the other when it comes to “life” issues, and both sides have different but defensible positions on “social” and “environmental” types of issues.

 

[chicago]

Actually I’m more than willing to point out the faults of both sides, but I also find that one side is far worse than the other when it comes to “life” issues, and both sides have different but defensible positions on “social” and “environmental” types of issues.

And they’re all ugly, fat, arrogant, and dumb!

 

[mary_bobo]

And, for eight years, we heard nothing but personal character attacks against Clinton from the right. (Not that they weren’t largely deserving.) We still hear them about Hilary. Whoever is not in power will tend to attack he who is. It seems to just be human nature.

Indeed. But most of those attacks were about thing HE did, not about traits over which he had no control. There were many Dems that were highly critical of his behavior, but in the end, politics won out and you can’t find a single one of them now. And I am still wondering what he did as president that makes so many classify him as a good president. He talked a great game, he is a very good communicator with a glib tongue, but in final analysis, what exactly did he do? The economy was good, true, but it was hardly the “worst economy in fifty years” prior to his inauguration. In fact, the economy was well on it’s way back up when he took office. Now the same political advisors are saying how bad the economy is now, which is simply not true.

 

[estesbob]

To me both are abject of evil. One against not defending the defensless of the unborn and the other not defending the defensless of the born.

That statement is not supportable by fact.It is one of those statements designed either to derail the discussion on the Demorats Partys support of abortion and/or try to provide cover for voting for pro-abortion canidates.

If you want to start a thread about which party better serves the poor please do so.

 

[josephdavid]

That statement is not supportable by fact.It is one of those statements designed either to derail the discussion on the Demorats Partys support of abortion and/or try to provide cover for voting for pro-abortion canidates.

If you want to start a thread about which party better serves the poor please do so.

Look at the voting records of both Democrats and Republicans and there are very very few who defend both life in the womb and defend life out of the womb.