Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

[qui_est_ce]

Murderers are people who have been convicted of murder.

I will forgive your dismissive tone in an attempt to educate you: I do not wear labels as I generally find them to be very variable in true meaningfulness, but for the purposes of argument you could say that I am pro-life. I am not pro-Republican or pro-what the conservative movement seems to mean these days. However, I tend to be conservative in my moral beliefs - these I weigh individually, not being one to simply assume an overall stand on issues en-masse.

A more pertinent question is, how do I view the right to life of unborn children: simply put, I passionately support their right to a life of dignity. That does not mean for me, as it does in some quarters of the left, that a child whose life I predict to be lacking in dignity should not enter this world. All children, from the moment of conception, have the right to be born into this world, but for me, that is just part of what it means to respect life. If you read any of the Church documents on life (which some fellow posters love to quote), you will notice that the words ‘life’ and ‘dignity’ tend to occur in close proximity to each other. In other words, to be respectful of life, one has to support the right of the unborn to a life of dignity. That is the definition of life I consider relevant when making an evaluation of candidates.

So, who decides a “life of dignity?” There are many who think a Down’s Syndrome child would not lead a “life of dignity” which is why close to 90% of them are killed in the womb. In Missouri, there is a waiting list to adopt a Down’s child.

Which party, based on the most of their history and policies, is most likely to act to reduce or end abortion (neither in my opinion) - and failing that, which party is most likely to enable the unborn to enter a life of dignity (which is where other social issues come into play).

The Republican party.

The Democrat party has made slaves of the poor.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Think of people who fought to keep women from attaining the vote. Were they right or wrong?

 

[seekerz]

I can’t be expected to remember something one poster said months ago if, indeed, I even saw it.

Well, go ahead and provide reputable sources (not stereotyping opinions) for each of the present Repub candidates.

With pleasure:

*Gingrich negatively stereotyping the poor:

“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash‘ unless it’s illegal.”

Read more: latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/12/08/geraldo-rivera-newt-gingrich-bold-but-dopey/#ixzz1izfA7kbA

(emphasis, mine)

*Gingrich suggesting that poor kids in failing schools (not simply any kid anywhere) would benefit from being school janitors:

nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/11/19/newt-fire-janitors-hire-kids-clean-schools

*Ron Paul vacillating on caring for the sick, on the grounds that taking care of everyone is not really what freedom is all about. He does eventually get round (not in the clip) to mentioning charity…as sort of an afterthought.

youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0

*Santorum, sort of denying negatively stereotyping black people, but negatively stereotyping some “bl-l-l” segment of society just the same:

youtube.com/watch?v=_dUqYnbS6m4

(He is followed in this same clip by Gingrich again negatively stereotyping some monolithic ‘black community’ which appears to exist in his mind. Guess black people should be grateful they were not the ones he derisively told to have a bath.)

Any candidate can let slip a not-so-respectful comment and Obama/Democrats are not immune, but these examples are more than random, stray comments. It sounds more life a refrain in one of those old long hymns of classic hymnals…What makes it more concerning is that this refrain finds its echoers and its apologists. The truly poor do exist and they are not simply lazy, all black people are not greedy welfare recipients, all the unemployed are not lazy and it is 2012 not 1812!

Mitt Romney is the only candidate who probably gets a pass with regard to the divisive rhetoric or maybe his is simply not as hot. For example, denying that a person who has fallen into poverty is in fact poor:

“Somebody who’s fallen from the middle class to poverty, in my opinion is still middle class.”

mediaite.com/tv/mitt-romney-says-people-who-fall-into-poverty-are-still-middle-class/

doesn’t seem to make much sense unless you are using something other than income to classify people socio-economically.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Spin it anyway you want, 54% of Catholics voted for Obama. Period.

That number should be 0%,

I’m not spinning it. Just telling it how it went. And I agree the number should be zero.

 

[seekerz]

So, who decides a “life of dignity?” There are many who think a Down’s Syndrome child would not lead a “life of dignity” which is why close to 90% of them are killed in the womb. In Missouri, there is a waiting list to adopt a Down’s child. The Republican party.

Dignity? My definition is pretty simple: treating someone the way you would, ideally like to be treated (Note that this does not require people to all be rich or equal in possessions).

The Democrat party has made slaves of the poor.

The Republican party can make the poor disappear with the wave of a wand…guess that makes them abolitionists!

 

[estesbob]

Dignity? My definition is pretty simple: treating someone the way you would, ideally like to be treated (Note that this does not require people to all be rich or equal in possessions).

The Republican party can make the poor disappear with the wave of a wand…guess that makes them abolitionists!

What dignity is available to those denied the right to life

 

[Ridgerunner]

With pleasure:

Mitt Romney is the only candidate who probably gets a pass with regard to the divisive rhetoric or maybe his is simply not as hot. For example, denying that a person who has fallen into poverty is in fact poor:

doesn’t seem to make much sense unless you are using something other than income to classify people socio-economically.

Don’t have time to read each one just now. But first let me say that I am not a Ron Paul supporter and have no inclination to defend him.

Here’s what the article quoted Romney as saying:

“Well, I want to make sure we have a safety net to care for those that are poor, but I want to get those who are poor into the middle class.

“My ambition is to make sure that we start creating jobs again in this country and that we have rising median incomes, as opposed to the 10% decline we’ve seen in the last four years.

“To get people back into work, get higher incomes, and let people have a middle-income life standard they had in the past. That’s the whole effort that I’m involved in.

“Somebody who’s fallen from the middle class to poverty, in my opinion is still middle class.”

Does that, to you, really say Romney is derisive toward the poor or does not think poor people exist? His point is about creating jobs which those who have fallen into poverty could then take and get out of poverty. What’s wrong with that? Did you want him to say middle class people who have fallen into poverty or people who were born to poverty are just doomed to stay there and that he’s okay with it if they do? Do you find it offensive that he’s optimistic about their potential prospects ?

 

[seekerz]

Stats on why women have abortions? Having worked in quality assurance in hospitals in several cities, and thus necessarily having access to medical records, I have my own ideas why people have abortions and mostly they are for selfish reasons.

I did, in a subsequent post, provide you with statistics. Selfish is a very subjective word. In my experience, women have abortions mainly to avoid social condemnation or because having a baby would be financially difficult or disruptive to their lifestyles. Some selfishness, some social circumstances and some economic circumstances appear in the mix.

 

[Personanongrata]

Wow …I never knew the US Constitution had a marriage limit in the qualifications for president … you learn something new every day … can you cite the paragraph?

Also - I never knew that Personanongrata had a say in who is or is not a “Catholic” no matter what the person claims … I guess you know more then Mother Church about whether Mr. Gingrich should have been fully initiated into the Church - did you contact the Bishop and let him know

Sorry I should have written - IMHO on my previous post. Still meant what I said about Gingrich though. He doesn’t have a prayer when it comes to the nomination. The US Constitution has a marriage limit??? I don’t have to cite anything for something you write - do I? Is that a new CAF rule?

 

[seekerz]

Don’t have time to read each one just now. But first let me say that I am not a Ron Paul supporter and have no inclination to defend him.

Here’s what the article quoted Romney as saying:

“Well, I want to make sure we have a safety net to care for those that are poor, but I want to get those who are poor into the middle class.

“My ambition is to make sure that we start creating jobs again in this country and that we have rising median incomes, as opposed to the 10% decline we’ve seen in the last four years.

“To get people back into work, get higher incomes, and let people have a middle-income life standard they had in the past. That’s the whole effort that I’m involved in.

“Somebody who’s fallen from the middle class to poverty, in my opinion is still middle class.”

Does that, to you, really say Romney is derisive toward the poor or does not think poor people exist? His point is about creating jobs which those who have fallen into poverty could then take and get out of poverty. What’s wrong with that? Did you want him to say middle class people who have fallen into poverty or people who were born to poverty are just doomed to stay there and that he’s okay with it if they do? Do you find it offensive that he’s optimistic about their potential prospects ?

I read the context and understand what he said. He does not deny the existence of poor people. He does express and intention to help the poor. He also clearly does not see all poor the same, so my question is: what differentiates them in his mind? He made that statement I quoted for a reason. I will not ascribe motives to him, but clearly something more is at work here than income level, if a person who falls into poverty is not considered part of ‘the poor’.

 

[seekerz]

What dignity is available to those denied the right to life

Life is inseparable from dignity, at least in Catholic doctrine I’m familiar with.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Dignity? My definition is pretty simple: treating someone the way you would, ideally like to be treated (Note that this does not require people to all be rich or equal in possessions).

Do you see how subjective your definition is?

The Republican party can make the poor disappear with the wave of a wand…guess that makes them abolitionists!

Not true at all. Conservatives have the highest rates of charitable donations and giving of their time and labor.

The Republican rep in our state wants to stop abortions of Down’s Syndrome babies by mandating that doctors give positive outlooks for the life of their child, rather than the “Sorry, but…” He is being opposed by those who worry that mothers might feel guilty about deciding to have an abortion anyway.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I read the context and understand what he said. He does not deny the existence of poor people. He does express and intention to help the poor. He also clearly does not see all poor the same, so my question is: what differentiates them in his mind? He made that statement I quoted for a reason. I will not ascribe motives to him, but clearly something more is at work here than income level, if a person who falls into poverty is not considered part of ‘the poor’.

Well, okay, so Romney, at least, did not deny the existence of the poor. One assertion refuted for at least one candidate so far.

I have, myself, been dead broke in my life, and more than once. I have, at times, owed far more than I owned. I have been without work on one occasion. Never did I consider myself “poor”, and why? Because I had skills I figured I could put to use and I was not afraid to go knocking on doors until I found work, or start my own business. I was not afraid to do without until my own labor resulted in improvement. Never did it occur to me to identify with some kind of “underclass”. Sounds to me like Romney has aspirations for what we think of as “middle class” economic status for virtually everyone.

Romney is obviously saying the availability of jobs makes the difference for most people, though he says he is not against a “safety net”. I don’t know what more you could reasonably ask of the man, and based on the information provided, I don’t see how you can condemn him. I’m not even sure you DO condemn him.

 

[seekerz]

Oh, did Herman Cain say he would have a “pro-choice” plank in his platform? Did he say he would be fine with his daughter aborting his grandchild? Did he say he favors Roe and its progeny? Maybe you can quote the damning statement.

I don’t know that a slowly declining abortion rate reflects a contradiction to a growing disapproval of abortion on demand. Could be the same people having multiple abortions for all one knows. Sort of like the divorce rates that are skewed by those who have multiple marriages and divorces.

No, Cain did not have a pro-choice plank in his platform. Yes, he did hesitate instead of clearly stating that he would not advise his daughter/granddaughter to have an abortion in the event of rape - which is what you would naturally expect to hear from someone with a stated pro-life stance of no abortion in any circumstances.

I see your point regarding multiple abortions and that indeed could well be the explanation. Still, there’s nothing like confronting an issue head-on to test the solidity of a person’s stance. I know of few people who have had an abortion, who would have spoken in support of abortion before their decision - they went ahead anyway, embarrassed, concealing but nevertheless, consenting.

 

[qui_est_ce]

With pleasure:

*Gingrich negatively stereotyping the poor:

(emphasis, mine)

*Gingrich suggesting that poor kids in failing schools (not simply any kid anywhere) would benefit from being school janitors:

nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/11/19/newt-fire-janitors-hire-kids-clean-schools

*Ron Paul vacillating on caring for the sick, on the grounds that taking care of everyone is not really what freedom is all about. He does eventually get round (not in the clip) to mentioning charity…as sort of an afterthought.

youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0

*Santorum, sort of denying negatively stereotyping black people, but negatively stereotyping some "bl-l-l

 

[estesbob]

Life is inseparable from dignity, at least in Catholic doctrine I’m familiar with.

Yet we have Cathoilcs support pro-abortion politicians. Go figure

 

[Ridgerunner]

*Santorum, sort of denying negatively stereotyping black people, but negatively stereotyping some “bl-l-l” segment of society just the same:

Any candidate can let slip a not-so-respectful comment and Obama/Democrats are not immune,

Here’s what you said Republican candidates do:
“…the demonization of the poor, or the denial of their existence.”

Here’s what your clip showed Santorum as actually saying:

“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money; And provide for themselves and their family.”

So, he didn’t deny the existence of the poor. Nor did he demonize them. He didn’t say (in the case of blacks in your chosen selection) “They won’t go out and work because blacks are lazy” or anything of the sort. His statement ASSUMES that black people would, with sufficient opportunity, be the exact opposite, and it ASSUMES his hearers would agree with that assessment. Absolutely nobody in this society, and I am sure you would be included in this, questions that a very substantial number of blacks in this country lack opportunity.

So, Santorum did neither of the things you accused him of doing. Like Romney’s message, Santorum’s is positive. He assumes good faith and willingness to be diligent on the part of those who can’t find jobs. Both men are the polar opposite of what you accuse them of being.

 

[Tigg]

The GOP is still strongly prolife and strongly pro-traditional marriage.

Believe this if you like - perhaps it seems so when compared to the Party of Death, even tho the GOP commitment to ending abortion was practically non-existent during the 6 years they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. I know this is an old argument and Republicans have tried to justify it, but I’m not buying it, nor interested in hearing the rebuttals again. Someone needs to capture the pro-life vote, and they’ll tell you anything you want to hear. You see, we are so desperate now, we are willing to close our eyes and grab hold of anything just as long as it doesn’t come from the “left.”

That is enough because those two issue alone surpass all others combined.

I wonder what rights the unborn will have and what dignity of life we will all enjoy as more and more personal liberty is taken away by both parties and Congress cedes our sovereignty to the global bureaucrats and their pillage of the planet. The social issues will not matter much at that point and then we can all remember that the GOP helped lead us toward the one-worldism that both parties seem so intent upon.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Did Gingrich, as you put it, really engage in “… the demonization of the poor, or the denial of their existence.”

Gingrich is essentially saying the same thing Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an unassailably liberal Senator was (now less famously) quoted as saying about the effects of the welfare state on poor people. But that was back when even liberal Democrats were able to speak the truth.

Among many other things on the subject, he said this:

"At the other end of the spectrum - about a quarter of the people - are those who are unmarried and in real trouble and go on welfare very young. If you don’t get hold of those people very quickly and work very hard and put a lot of resources into them, you have a spoiled life. And their children have fairly chancy prospects."

He said more, of course.

One could criticize Gingrich for purporting to say something new that’s really an old analysis, but not for “demonizing” the poor or “pretending they don’t exist”.

 

[irishpatrick]

Believe this if you like - perhaps it seems so when compared to the Party of Death, even tho the GOP commitment to ending abortion was practically non-existent during the 6 years they controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. I know this is an old argument and Republicans have tried to justify it, but I’m not buying it, nor interested in hearing the rebuttals again. Someone needs to capture the pro-life vote, and they’ll tell you anything you want to hear. You see, we are so desperate now, we are willing to close our eyes and grab hold of anything just as long as it doesn’t come from the “left.”

I wonder what rights the unborn will have and what dignity of life we will all enjoy as more and more personal liberty is taken away by both parties and Congress cedes our sovereignty to the global bureaucrats and their pillage of the planet. The social issues will not matter much at that point and then we can all remember that the GOP helped lead us toward the one-worldism that both parties seem so intent upon.

sigh

I grow tired of speaking to the actual facts of history, stuff people should know since it was just years ago. Bush had only the slimest of majorities and could not have been expected to do more than he did, and he did more than any other President–he saved many unborn lives.

People do not seem to understand that it takes 60+ votes in the Senate to be able to fillibuster proof. Bush and the GOP have always had slim majorities, and the Democrats simply stopped them from passing bills they did not like.

With that said, Bush did an awful lot for life (just research it), and the GOP remains a truly prolife party.