S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
And I responded to it. I guess I should have said from him specifically.
- Status
I
ishii
Guest
I can understand your frustration. I donât know about the 90âs - maybe the GOP could have done more then - would Clinton have vetoed any efforts to defund PP? And maybe they could have done more in the 2000âs. Are you lumping Henry Hyde and all the other pro-life GOP congressmen and senators with the ones who you say are frauds? That would be quite an accusation. GOP pro-life measures have been well documented on these forums - there is one or two posters who have a long, long list of GOP pro-life accomplishments on the federal level, let alone at the state level. Yet you are saying that the GOP as a whole is not sincerely pro-life due to lack of defunding Planned Parenthood. I agree that not defunding PP is unfortunate, but does that mean we should ignore the progress and good things that the GOP has done and not encourage more of it? Again, I am encouraged by Romneyâs pick of pro-life Catholic Paul Ryan as vice president, and the picking of Robert Bork as judicial advisor, arenât you? Or do you think they are fraudulent pro-lifers as well, being that theyâre Republican?
Ishii
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
Itâs just that given the history, the lukewarm support of pro-life measures is not enough to overcome their rabid pro-war views, the horrific economic views, the record on civil liberties, and the like, I donât see the reason to give them my support.
K
katcecelia
Guest
I just saw read this, linked on another post⌠I think you would find it very much up your alley⌠english.pravda.ru/opinion/colâŚre_delusion-0/
K
katcecelia
Guest
you may have to type it inâŚ
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
In post 196 I quote 2 people who blatantly accused me of sin.
And the most delicate way to say this is: I donât think that posts 216, 223, and 247 are the epitome of being charitable. Actually, having been on the receiving end of them, some adjectives I would use to describe them are: derisive, mocking, ridiculing, cutting, condescending, mean-spirited, and meant for tearing down (ie: the opposite of building up which 1 Cor 13 commands that we do to other Christians). That is how they came across to me, whom they were directed to.
Lastly, when personal attacks are directed at me. I personally find it the most helpful if I use the first person to respond to the attacks made on me. You use first person 4x in that last sentence⌠and thatâs because thatâs your conscience. My conscience leads me to Virgil Goode, who is a perfectly acceptable person to vote for in the eyes of the Church.
And, Iâll say it again: if anyone tells me itâs a sin to vote for Virgil Goode (which no one has ever said that)⌠then I would go and ask my priest. He is the Church, not yâall. Iâll go straight to the Church and ask the priest directly (in that case).
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
austenboston:
So, everyone might not take third parties seriously, but the reason certainly isnât because they themselves donât.
They donât have a fair and equal shot. A lot of their money is spent in court just trying to fight to get on the ballot.
Governorship Race of Colorado, 2010:
And, we canât take cues from the U.K. The U.K. currently has 3 major parties and 7 minor parties sitting in Parliament. And thatâs not all, they also have an 8th minor party NOT sitting in parliament: Sinn Fein.
Furthermore, Iâm now very interestedâŚ
In the 2010 Governor race in Colorado the Democrat got 51%, Tom Tancredo got 36% for the Constitution Party (shown in Purple), and the Republican got only 11% of the vote.
Were those Republican voters âwasting their votes?â, were they âallowing evil by not voting for a candidate who could winâ? Is yâalls rhetoric the same when the tables are turned?
Because in my view, clearly those Republicans were better represented by the Republican party. Their consciences didnât allow them to vote Constitution. It didnât match their ideology.
This has been an exercise in: walking in another manâs shoes.
:tiphat:
The Constitution Party very nearly won the Governorship of the state of Colorado in 2010. I donât know what the Alex Jones show is, but I would guess third parties go on it because they donât exactly have a lot of options. Constitution, Libertarian, and Green party candidates ALL appeared on an episode of Stossel in a heartbeat. Debates wonât let third parties on, and most media donât either. The media and parties are complicit in maintaining the status quo. Ralph Nader almost got arrested for wanting to sit in the audience of a debate he wasnât allowed to participate in (he didnât get to go to his chair)
So, everyone might not take third parties seriously, but the reason certainly isnât because they themselves donât.They donât have a fair and equal shot. A lot of their money is spent in court just trying to fight to get on the ballot.
Governorship Race of Colorado, 2010:
And, we canât take cues from the U.K. The U.K. currently has 3 major parties and 7 minor parties sitting in Parliament. And thatâs not all, they also have an 8th minor party NOT sitting in parliament: Sinn Fein.
Furthermore, Iâm now very interestedâŚ
In the 2010 Governor race in Colorado the Democrat got 51%, Tom Tancredo got 36% for the Constitution Party (shown in Purple), and the Republican got only 11% of the vote.
Were those Republican voters âwasting their votes?â, were they âallowing evil by not voting for a candidate who could winâ? Is yâalls rhetoric the same when the tables are turned?
Because in my view, clearly those Republicans were better represented by the Republican party. Their consciences didnât allow them to vote Constitution. It didnât match their ideology.
This has been an exercise in: walking in another manâs shoes.
:tiphat:
I
Irishgal49
Guest
Ishii,
Everyone knows and itâs common knowledge that Romney benefitted close to 11 million dollars off of disposing of aborted babies. Stericycleâthatâs why he distanced himself when he announced his candidacy. He also accepted a HUGE fundraiser from the CEO of Teva Pharmaceuticals who manufactures the Morning After pill, plan B.
I point out these things but people are so willingly deluded it does no good. I cannot in good conscience believe a man who changes his stances like his clothing. There is no overturning of Roe Versus Wade. Itâs a Supreme Court Decision. There are ways to clog the system to make it hard to obtain but a president doesnât do anything; 8 years of Bush, what about that? Such liars and whatâs fun is that people WANT to be lied toâI am not voting for a man who has changed his mind several times on these issues.
He is not truly pro-life,
B
BroomWagon
Guest
B
BroomWagon
Guest
Per Roe V. Wade being overturned, at the least we should likely see Planned Parenthood defunded as it has been defunded in states with Republican Governors in Wisconsin, New Jersey and elsewhere. At the least this will mean fewer abortions.
I
ishii
Guest
Irishgal, if you intentionally defame someone that is calumny. I donât know if its intentional, but I would be careful with this. You are ignoring the posts by people who are showing that Romney had nothing to do with Stericycle.
Ishii
A
anilorak13ska
Guest
AmenSemper Zelare, your postings are absolutely the reason why you NEED to make time for politics! You, along with Vanguardian and smndtupidisaftr have expressed some outside-the-box thinking that I find to be refreshing. And donât take anything on here personally - everyoneâs entitled to to give an opinion - and pretty much anyone who expresses disfavor toward our lesser-of-the-two-evils voting pattern has been called names.
Itâs always hard to defend a position thatâs isnât popular, but just think about all the people viewing this thread who have not commented who might be reflecting on some points youâve made.
(I personally came into this thread late and was feeling too lazy to go back and address some posts I agreed/disagreed with, so Iâm showing some support for you now.) :console:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
This is wrong on all counts.
Failure to oppose evil when one can is to be complicit in it.
To be complicit with the evildoer is to support his evil.
There is no reason whatever to believe Romney is âfor warâ. None. Obama, on the other hand, bombed Libya without any provocation or support from Congress.
R
RACJ
Guest
Obama IS truly ANTI-life; about that, there is no debate. He is the type of man about whom our Founders feared. POWER is the only thing that animates Obama.
Rob
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
But in going against evil, we cannot support evil for an end that is less evil.
Romney has said that Obama hasnât been tough enough on Iran. So instituting sanctions that are starving and killing people arenât going far enough?
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
I just want to say that this was a fantastic post. Also remember that Gary Johnson won a state governorship. I donât support the guy because of his views on abortion, but the point is that just because the media labels someone as âunelectableâ does not make it so.The Constitution Party very nearly won the Governorship of the state of Colorado in 2010. I donât know what the Alex Jones show is, but I would guess third parties go on it because they donât exactly have a lot of options. Constitution, Libertarian, and Green party candidates ALL appeared on an episode of Stossel in a heartbeat. Debates wonât let third parties on, and most media donât either. The media and parties are complicit in maintaining the status quo. Ralph Nader almost got arrested for wanting to sit in the audience of a debate he wasnât allowed to participate in (he didnât get to go to his chair)
They donât have a fair and equal shot. A lot of their money is spent in court just trying to fight to get on the ballot.
Governorship Race of Colorado, 2010:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Colorado10.png/240px-Colorado10.png
And, we canât take cues from the U.K. The U.K. currently has 3 major parties and 7 minor parties sitting in Parliament. And thatâs not all, they also have an 8th minor party NOT sitting in parliament: Sinn Fein.
Furthermore, Iâm now very interestedâŚ
In the 2010 Governor race in Colorado the Democrat got 51%, Tom Tancredo got 36% for the Constitution Party (shown in Purple), and the Republican got only 11% of the vote.
Were those Republican voters âwasting their votes?â, were they âallowing evil by not voting for a candidate who could winâ? Is yâalls rhetoric the same when the tables are turned?
Because in my view, clearly those Republicans were better represented by the Republican party. Their consciences didnât allow them to vote Constitution. It didnât match their ideology.
This has been an exercise in: walking in another manâs shoes.
A
austenbosten
Guest
Was that really because of the Constitutional Party, or just Tom Tancredo.The Constitution Party very nearly won the Governorship of the state of Colorado in 2010. I donât know what the Alex Jones show is, but I would guess third parties go on it because they donât exactly have a lot of options. Constitution, Libertarian, and Green party candidates ALL appeared on an episode of Stossel in a heartbeat. Debates wonât let third parties on, and most media donât either. The media and parties are complicit in maintaining the status quo. Ralph Nader almost got arrested for wanting to sit in the audience of a debate he wasnât allowed to participate in (he didnât get to go to his chair)
They donât have a fair and equal shot. A lot of their money is spent in court just trying to fight to get on the ballot.
Governorship Race of Colorado, 2010:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Colorado10.png/240px-Colorado10.png
And, we canât take cues from the U.K. The U.K. currently has 3 major parties and 7 minor parties sitting in Parliament. And thatâs not all, they also have an 8th minor party NOT sitting in parliament: Sinn Fein.
Furthermore, Iâm now very interestedâŚ
In the 2010 Governor race in Colorado the Democrat got 51%, Tom Tancredo got 36% for the Constitution Party (shown in Purple), and the Republican got only 11% of the vote.
Were those Republican voters âwasting their votes?â, were they âallowing evil by not voting for a candidate who could winâ? Is yâalls rhetoric the same when the tables are turned?
Because in my view, clearly those Republicans were better represented by the Republican party. Their consciences didnât allow them to vote Constitution. It didnât match their ideology.
This has been an exercise in: walking in another manâs shoes.
Once again this is another reason I have little respect for 3rd parties and their candidates Gary Johnson, Bob Barr and Ron Paul are just users who go 3rd party out of convience, the minute they loseâŚoh surprise surprise next primary election they change their party affiliation back to Republican.
3rd parties constantly get used by hack Republicans who are only concerned with their own careers and use them as vehicles for their own goals and 3rd parties are just more than happy to jump at the bait.
As for Virgil Goode, the man has been a Democrat, an Independent, a Republican and just conveniently a Constitutionalist since the last Primary ElectionâŚWill Goode remain a Constitutionalist after he loses, or will he be like all the other 3rd partier loser candidates and crawl back to the Republican party after they used the 3rd party come 2013?. You pro-Goode/anti-Romney people expect me to distrust Romney and trust a guy who has jumped party more times than Arlen Spector? Isnât Virgil Goode a classic example of the âtypical politicianâ you guys despise so much, who will say and do anything to get elected?
- Status