Now** there’s** a tap dance for you!
Vern,Now** there’s** a tap dance for you!
“No” has two letters. “Yes” has three letters. But to avoid answering, you had to use 15 letters!
So I’ll give you another chance. Don’t wear your fingers out this time. Just answer “yes” or “no.”
Yes, Jim, it is a yes or no question.
The word “fool” is not permitted on this forum.
Thank you for proving my point – even though you refuse to answer the question, you camouflage your refusal by pretending that “abortions are needed.”
Precisely **how **does a pro-choice candidate “actively create conditions for fewer or no abortions?”
But are we not permitted to write in a candidate when we are dissatisfied with th other options? I will write in myself since I find things like the war in Iraq and the death penalty very antilife.
Now who is reading minds with their crystal ball? I never said abortions are needed. But it is wrong just to go in and make it a criminal act without backing it up with alternatives like paying the less fortunate couples to carry their babies to term. Put the money where the mouth is.
I’m not going to fall into your fool’s trap. Of COURSE I won’t vote for a pro-choice politician. That does not mean, however, that I would vote for a candidate who claims to be anti-abortion while espousing an ideology that does every thing possible to prevent a society where human life, as opposed to say, material wealth or power, is the thing most valued.Now** there’s** a tap dance for you!
“No” has two letters. “Yes” has three letters. But to avoid answering, you had to use 15 letters!
So I’ll give you another chance. Don’t wear your fingers out this time. Just answer “yes” or “no.”
Well that non-vote may very well help elect just what you DON’T want.
If you didn’t, then someone posted this under your name:
(my emphasis)
And that ties right in with the “abortions are needed” argument. Shame on you!
I will not vote for a candidate who sends men off to die in an unnecessary war yet pretends to be prolife. I want a candidate who is prolife across the board. If I am the only one to fit that description I will vote for myself. That is an informed conscience and no vote is ever wasted.Well that non-vote may very well help elect just what you DON’T want.
Lesser of evils is how to vote.
Nothing today is killing more people than abortion.
Our catholic duty is to do our best to eliminate the slaughter of children.
I’m sorry you won’t participate because you find Iraq unpalatable. It’s funny, most of our soldiers there don’t share your opinion.
So, it’s all about the stance on abortion. Sounds like “symbolism over substance,” to quote a right-wing favorite.
When everyone on the conservative side is so interested in slashing the budget more than actually supporting life I find it hard to believe they are anything more than just prolife in word only.
Sounds like you and I are in agreement on this one.
Which is why the canard that “Republicans are pro-life because they are opposed to federal funding of abortions” is hollow. It’s not motivated by pro-life core beliefs, it’s motivated by anti-government beliefs. They’re opposed to the federal funding of ANYTHING (except the military, whose job it is to “kill people and break things”).
And with everyone on the liberal side making false claims like that, and saying that abortion is necessary, I find it hard to believe they are anything more than pro-choice, even though some will jump through hoops to avoid admitting it.
If a person supported pediophilia would you vote for them if they say they will actively create conditions so there are fewer or no child molestations?
Abortion is not necessary. But the conservatives should cough up some support for life financially. Actions speak louder than words.
Hello GoofyJim
Can you point to be any social program that has been cut since 2000? And even if your premise were true surely you are not suggesting that children are better dead than underfed?
As a voter it is our responsibility to check voting records.
