V
vern_humphrey
Guest
How directly related to the substance of what was said.
It was a crude, mean-spirited remark, with no redeeming content. All it showed was the spite and hatred of the person who made it.
- Status
It was a crude, mean-spirited remark, with no redeeming content. All it showed was the spite and hatred of the person who made it.
D
dmelosi
Guest
I am not sure how you leave out the most important thing that a president can do nominate 2 pro life judges. It seems like you are dismissing the fight the democrats and republicans had, split between party lines. This was the main issue for both sides, with democrats fighting to not allow a pro life judge where republicans were fighting for the pro life nomination.Sadly so.
To quote a famous right-wing talk radio personality: “Symbolism over substance.” (Oop! I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.) The ONLY reason many people vote Republican is because of the “pro-life plank” being tacked on. The Republican Party has absolutely NO interest in eliminating abortion because of this fact.
If I am forced to vote Republican this year that would be the ONLY reason. I absolutely despise a majority of Republican ideology because I see it as based in pride, anger, envy, gluttony and avarice. Truth is, if one of the Democratic candidates were pro-life I’d vote for them in a heartbeat, but I cannot and am forced to vote for someone I know could do untold damage to our country…all because they claim to be “pro-life.”
Absolutely DISGUSTING!
Just the opposite of your comment above. Are you so in love with what you think the democratic party stands far that it is so hard to admit this?
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
I could respond in the way you usually do with playground taunts and your favorite emoticon:
But I’m not going to stoop to that level.
And the hateful stuff said about Democrats and other non-Republicans is…what? Love, flowers and lace? I notice that when your sacred cow gets gored, you jump all over people. How hypocritical.
Look, I am totally disappointed with the results of Republican rule (sky high gas prices, food prices spiraling into the stratosphere, a dollar that is rapidly losing value, etc…with no end in sight) and absolutely no discernible results relative to the primary reason so many Christians vote for Republicans, namely, the unfettered slaughter of unborn children. Okay, so Bush appointed two possibly anti-Roe v. Wade justices into the Supreme Court and signed some symbolic anti-abortion legislation. Right now, those moves are little more than “symbolism over substance” to quote one the faves of the right-wing.
I have to ask: does the Republican party really have an interest in the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the elimination of abortion in the United States? (I double-dog dare you to answer that one!)
I say that they don’t because they know that without the abortion issue (or other morals issue) to flog, Christians are most likely to vote for their economic self-interest and for most working-class people (who don’t listen to right-wing talk radio or FauxNews), that’s not with the Republican party. I hate to break it to ya.
Now perhaps in South, people tend to be adhere to this “self-sufficiency” ideology (I’d say nonsense), but those of us who live within close proximity to other human beings on a daily basis kinda see things differently. That is to say, we ask how policies will affect others and not just ourselves.
Oops! There I go again with the hatred. God forbid I take the concerns and needs of others into consideration. So, so sorry.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Lemmee know when you’re gonna do a post like this again, and I’ll get a mop.I could respond in the way you usually do with playground taunts and your favorite emoticon:
But I’m not going to stoop to that level.
And the hateful stuff said about Democrats and other non-Republicans is…what? Love, flowers and lace? I notice that when your sacred cow gets gored, you jump all over people. How hypocritical.
Look, I am totally disappointed with the results of Republican rule (sky high gas prices, food prices spiraling into the stratosphere, a dollar that is rapidly losing value, etc…with no end in sight) and absolutely no discernible results relative to the primary reason so many Christians vote for Republicans, namely, the unfettered slaughter of unborn children. Okay, so Bush appointed two possibly anti-Roe v. Wade justices into the Supreme Court and signed some symbolic anti-abortion legislation. Right now, those moves are little more than “symbolism over substance” to quote one the faves of the right-wing.
I have to ask: does the Republican party really have an interest in the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the elimination of abortion in the United States? (I double-dog dare you to answer that one!)
I say that they don’t because they know that without the abortion issue (or other morals issue) to flog, Christians are most likely to vote for their economic self-interest and for most working-class people (who don’t listen to right-wing talk radio or FauxNews), that’s not with the Republican party. I hate to break it to ya.
Now perhaps in South, people tend to be adhere to this “self-sufficiency” ideology (I’d say nonsense), but those of us who live within close proximity to other human beings on a daily basis kinda see things differently. That is to say, we ask how policies will affect others and not just ourselves.
Oops! There I go again with the hatred. God forbid I take the concerns and needs of others into consideration. So, so sorry.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I understand the anger and revulsion you feel because I felt the same way when I voted in 2004. It was the right thing to do with regard to abortion, but the result… gosh our country is in a mess. :nope:
S
stringbeanduck
Guest
I need to ask yall. Do you think our country would have been a lot better off if both nominated democrat candidates would have become president back in the 2000 and 2004 elections?
R
ribozyme
Guest
Yes…
At least Keynesian military deficit spending would not be part of the agenda.
B
BamaRider
Guest
I see nothing has changed, while I was away. I take a break for a mid winter ride to the Florida Keys to come back and find poor ole Vern still fending off LCM?? 
Did y’all even miss me??
All I’m gonna say to my fellow Catholics is this; Think long and hard about this upcoming election. The next president has a better then 50-50 chance at being called upon to nominate *3 *Surpeme Court Justices. If those seats are filled with 3 pro choice judges, 2 generations of hard work fighting Roe v Wade will be for naught. It will push the pro life movement back 25 years or more.
Pray about your choice and act vote accordingly.
Did y’all even miss me??
All I’m gonna say to my fellow Catholics is this; Think long and hard about this upcoming election. The next president has a better then 50-50 chance at being called upon to nominate *3 *Surpeme Court Justices. If those seats are filled with 3 pro choice judges, 2 generations of hard work fighting Roe v Wade will be for naught. It will push the pro life movement back 25 years or more.
Pray about your choice and act vote accordingly.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Translation: Vote Republican!
And by 25 years, the pro-life movement will be abolished.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
More like engaging in childish mockery. Par for the course. He’s now in my iggy file.I see nothing has changed, while I was away. I take a break for a mid winter ride to the Florida Keys to come back and find poor ole Vern still fending off LCM??
You were gone?
R
RobbyS
Guest
Far more wealth is devoted to the care and sustainence of us old folks than for the military. We spend more on us in one year than we have spent for the War in Southwest Asia. Furthermore, one needs to realize that the roots of the matter go much deeper than the policy of this administration. One reason for the general acceptance of military intervention in South West Asia was the Bush was simply carrying into effect the intentions expressed by Bill Clinton in 1998 to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. That 1998 policy was the result of Saddam’s failure to comply wth the terms of of his 1991 armistice with us. The 1991 war was the result of Saddam’s frustration in his war with Iran, which was in turn the result of Khomeini’s Revolution. One can carry this sequence of events back almost forever, back to the First World War and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and the imperfect settlement that was the cause of so much misery in the 20th Century.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I think you are right about this.
D
dmelosi
Guest
There would be 2 more pro murder judges on the supreme court.
B
BamaRider
Guest
The ribo sez-
You say this like it would be a good thing?
S
seekerz
Guest
Can pro-murder be defined by the support of any other action than abortion or is abortion the only way innocent people are killed?
Don’t get me wrong - I am totally and firmly against any type of abortion; I just can’t narrow my vision to one kind of atrocity to the exclusion of others.
D
dmelosi
Guest
The most lives are taken by abortion, not even a distant second.
And since I was talking about judges, how are they pro murder on anything else? Or were you trying to change the subject?
S
seekerz
Guest
You lost me here. I always had trouble with “more than” and “less than” mathematics, which to me is a particularly meaningless concept when dealing with human life.
As to the second part of the question, I simply want to know if the only way someone can be pro-murder is by supporting abortion?
R
rlg94086
Guest
No. They could support euthanasia. Or, they could be an anarchist and oppose all laws.
D
dmelosi
Guest
We all agree that the number of abortions is the deliberate snuffing out of millions of the most innocent lives.
It can be argued that other issues (that I wish you would bring up independantly) is not the deliberate snuffing out of lives.
Please tell me what you mean, please list examples of other things you think are pro murder.
As far as the second question you ask…
There are all kinds of ways that someone can be pro-murder. Here are a few…
Death penalty in many cases (not always)
Deliberate withhold care to cause death
Unjust wars
E
Ender
Guest
This is a common problem whenever someone starts talking about being “pro-life” but this is the first time I have seen it used for “pro-murder”. That is, the definition is stretched to include things the writer disapproves of that have only a faint connection to the term.
The death penalty does not belong here. Murder is defined by the Church as the deliberate taking of innocent life; since criminals are by definition not innocent, taking their lives is not murder. Nor does the execution of an innocent person constitute murder since the killing of the innocent in that case is not deliberate.
War does not belong here either. I think most of us can easily conclude that Germany initiated an unjust war (WWII) but I have never heard anyone in or out of the Church declare that all German soldiers were guilty of murder.
Abortion and euthanasia fit the definition; leave it at that.
Ender
- Status