Fox News' Highly Reluctant Jesus Follower

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I understand that the DNC is offering a reward for their capture. Shouldn’t take long, as there are only 3 of them.

But the point IS-------

There ARE some. That was my point.

About as rare as a Chaffee Liberal Republican, but there.

Guess they will go the way of so much life on this earth for millions of years.

To be sure.

 

[Ridgerunner]

ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_03n-NARAL.htm

ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_06n-NRLC.htm

You might notice on here that NARAL rates him at 29% and NRLC at 50%, largely due to his support of stem cell research and not the fundamental issue of legal abortion. The fact that you claim something patently untrue makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

Also, may I have the entire list of votes that NARAL and NRLC graded, in the interest of complete transparency to prove me wrong?

.

I don’t know what Harry Reid did between 2003 (your citation) and 2009 votesmart.org/interest-group/1016/rating/4759 to make NARAL think him a better abortion advocate, but they did. In 2009, they gave him a 100% abortion supporter rating.

Nor do I know what he did between 2006 (your citation) and 2012 votesmart.org/interest-group/252/rating/6609?p=2&of= to make NRL realize he’s pretty much a total abortion supporter. But they did. In 2012, they gave him a 0% prolife rating.

Now that we have updated, I recommend that you research the NARAL and NRL sites to see what they based their judgments on, rather than call on me to do it for you. Otherwise, you can accept the most recent ratings.

 

[estesbob]

Unjust rules should always be criticized, regardless of if they are legal or not! And the redistricting advantage was HEAVILY due to gerrymandering. You don’t gain a 7 percentage point handicap in every House race without heavy gerrymandering; it isn’t possible.

I see nothing unjust about them. The legislature is elected by the people of the State. They set up the districts every 10 years based on the census. It is now and always has been a political process-as it should be

 

[Ridgerunner]

Neglected to mention this. If Harry Reid is a big stem cell research supporter, that’s about as anti-life as abortion itself is. In some ways it’s worse. It’s human vivisection, in truth. Interesting that throughout known history people have always had a visceral abhorrence of the notion of vampirism. In our “more enlightened” age, some think nothing of utilizing the body fluids and parts of innocents to create products they think life-saving or life-enhancing, or just (like Mengele) to experiment with.

Apparently it doesn’t bother Harry Reid (or a lot of other Democrats, who tend to support it), but then, probably some people have always thought vampirism of the older sort was okay too. Just not so many of them as now.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

I understand that the DNC is offering a reward for their capture. Shouldn’t take long, as there are only 3 of them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I understand that the DNC is offering a reward for their capture. Shouldn’t take long, as there are only 3 of them.

This greatly reminds me of something.

My wife also held an office in the Dem party years ago. She was appointed to a state committee. She was to deliver a speech to party activists on ways to expand the party’s reach; to appeal to more people.

Well, the centerpiece of her speech was to encourage prolife candidates within the party, and she did a good job of it. Later she was told by the head of the Central Committee that she was never to say such things again; that it was “divisive”.

“Divisive?” Where, then, was the sought-after party “unity” to be found? When it comes to abortion, we all know now; unswerving devotion to abortion was the “unity” of ideology the party was developing. But later, it didn’t end there.

She and I talked about that a lot. Being then “true believers” in the party in which we had both grown up, it was agonizing, actually.

And we realized it was not possible to remain dedicated to the party and to Catholicism at the same time. We had to choose.

Shortly after that, she resigned her office, as did I.

Since then, it has become increasingly apparent that the “old party” ideologies; aid to the poor, serving the interests of families and the working man or woman, had been abandoned by the party in favor of what we think of as “gender politics”, even perhaps “genital politics”. Abortion, contraception, homosexual “marriage”, laws to introduce “transgenderism” as a “variation of normal”, and teaching children by every means imaginable that those things are the proper objects of societal aspiration. Not Christianity, not the poor, not working people, not families, not the dignity of labor.

Virtue the current party ideology is to some. To us, and I submit to any faithful Catholic who looks at it honestly, corruption is what it truly is.

Having experienced what we experienced, it does not seem possible that Kierston Powers can remain a true Democrat very long if she follows a Christian path. That would be a serious blow to her career, one thinks. But she has a choice to make, just as my wife and I did.

 

[Tigg]

This greatly reminds me of something.

My wife also held an office in the Dem party years ago. She was appointed to a state committee. She was to deliver a speech to party activists on ways to expand the party’s reach; to appeal to more people.

Well, the centerpiece of her speech was to encourage prolife candidates within the party, and she did a good job of it. Later she was told by the head of the Central Committee that she was never to say such things again; that it was “divisive”.

“Divisive?” Where, then, was the sought-after party “unity” to be found? When it comes to abortion, we all know now; unswerving devotion to abortion was the “unity” of ideology the party was developing. But later, it didn’t end there.

She and I talked about that a lot. Being then “true believers” in the party in which we had both grown up, it was agonizing, actually.

And we realized it was not possible to remain dedicated to the party and to Catholicism at the same time. We had to choose.

Shortly after that, she resigned her office, as did I.

Since then, it has become increasingly apparent that the “old party” ideologies; aid to the poor, serving the interests of families and the working man or woman, had been abandoned by the party in favor of what we think of as “gender politics”, even perhaps “genital politics”. Abortion, contraception, homosexual “marriage”, laws to introduce “transgenderism” as a “variation of normal”, and teaching children by every means imaginable that those things are the proper objects of societal aspiration. Not Christianity, not the poor, not working people, not families, not the dignity of labor.

Virtue the current party ideology is to some. To us, and I submit to any faithful Catholic who looks at it honestly, corruption is what it truly is.

Having experienced what we experienced, it does not seem possible that Kierston Powers can remain a true Democrat very long if she follows a Christian path. That would be a serious blow to her career, one thinks. But she has a choice to make, just as my wife and I did.

You have stated this theme on other threads and thank you for your witness. Please don’t ever stop. Some have become so desensitized to the horrific acts of immorality, they are in a state of paralysis. The mind-numbing affect enables them to defend that which a Christian simply cannot support.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You have stated this theme on other threads and thank you for your witness. Please don’t ever stop. Some have become so desensitized to the horrific acts of immorality, they are in a state of paralysis. The mind-numbing affect enables them to defend that which a Christian simply cannot support.

The reaction of some of our associatiates was astonishment. After that, we noticed a trickle of people, Catholics mostly, but also more fundamentalist protestants, away from the Dem party. But some solidly remained dedicated to the party.

Over the years, we have thought about this. There are, we believe, lots of reasons why people remain Democrats, even though the party they knew no longer exists. Some of it is habit. Some of it is simply ambition. Some of it is the reluctance of people to admit they were wrong and needed to change. Some of it is being in love with the “notion” of the Dem party.

Now and then one sees the expressions (usually by young men) of being “in love with the notion of being in love”, rather than with an actual woman. I have seen it here on CAF. And so it can be with politics. Some people want very much to believe in a party that stands for the virtues for which the Dem party once stood. But having no proper object, their devotion is simply to the “notion”, not the reality.

And remaining in love with the “notion” requires a good deal of rationalization. I see it at times in some of my old political associates who say “well, yes, I agree, but in the future…” One wonders about Kirsten Powers; whether she feels herself no longer obligated to maintain the rationalization required to remain in love with the “notion”.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You have stated this theme on other threads and thank you for your witness. Please don’t ever stop. Some have become so desensitized to the horrific acts of immorality, they are in a state of paralysis. The mind-numbing affect enables them to defend that which a Christian simply cannot support.

I second that.

 

[Darryl1958]

The reaction of some of our associatiates was astonishment. After that, we noticed a trickle of people, Catholics mostly, but also more fundamentalist protestants, away from the Dem party. But some solidly remained dedicated to the party.

Over the years, we have thought about this. There are, we believe, lots of reasons why people remain Democrats, even though the party they knew no longer exists. Some of it is habit. Some of it is simply ambition. Some of it is the reluctance of people to admit they were wrong and needed to change. Some of it is being in love with the “notion” of the Dem party.

Now and then one sees the expressions (usually by young men) of being “in love with the notion of being in love”, rather than with an actual woman. I have seen it here on CAF. And so it can be with politics. Some people want very much to believe in a party that stands for the virtues for which the Dem party once stood. But having no proper object, their devotion is simply to the “notion”, not the reality.

And remaining in love with the “notion” requires a good deal of rationalization. I see it at times in some of my old political associates who say “well, yes, I agree, but in the future…” One wonders about Kirsten Powers; whether she feels herself no longer obligated to maintain the rationalization required to remain in love with the “notion”.

There is a difference between someone with liberal tendencies, I think, and someone with conservative tendencies.
In general, conservatives tend to take the point of human excellence, and allowing people the freedom to reach their highest potential. The whole thrust of justice in such a worldview is in an emphasis on the magnanimity of individuals who have developed their potential to the fullest.
Liberals for their part see justice as emanating from a community of caring, and tend to place their focus on the poor, the orphan and the widow, and ensuring that none of these fall through the cracks into despair.
These tendencies will always be in conflict to some degree, although from a bird’s eye view they are complementary with each guarding against the excesses of the other. They are both subject to the corrupting influences of fallen human nature as well, with attitudes of ‘those who finish with the most toys, win’ emanating from the right, and totalitarian control of people convinced of their own righteous amd the rigtheousness of their causes emanating from the left.

People of the latter (uncorrupted)liberal mindset often speak of the fact that they did not leave the Democratic Party, but that the Democratic Party abandoned them.
And that is very true. When Ted Kennedy abandoned his (pro-life) Catholic position to reel in the feminist vote, this heralded in a very different kind of Democratic Party.

As for myself, I tend toward the former viewpoint of freedom of the small government/large individual variety. Nevertheless, I do have a lot of patience for those with a more liberal point of view, which can be thoroughly Catholic.
I have no patience at all however, for most, if not all, of the current batch of liberal Catholics who still look upon the Democratic Party with star-struck eyes, and smear the Republicans as the epitome of racist, sexist, selfish bigots.