PRO-LIFE AND PRO-FAMILY DEMOCRATS LEFT HOMELESS

 

Catholic League president William Donohue spoke today on the status of pro-life and pro-family Democrats:

 

“Every January 22, pro-life Americans rally in Washington D.C. to protest the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.  These men and women are drawn from all religions, races and ethnicities, and they form a core base among Republicans and Democrats.  It is also true that support for the traditional understanding of marriage comes from all sectors of American society.  It is sad to note, however, that those Democrats who are pro-life and pro-family are being shunned—even mocked—by the Democratic National Committee.

 

“There is a group called Democrats for Life in America.  Their goal is to move their party in a pro-life direction.  But they have learned that the party of inclusion excludes them altogether.  In vain have they tried to get the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to provide a link on its website to their organization.  But the DNC has no problem providing a link to a notoriously anti-Catholic group, Catholics for a Free Choice.  The passion for abortion rights is so extreme in the Democratic Party that it will bond with bigots who share its position before ever working with decent men and women of their party who differ with them on this issue.

 

“To make matters worse, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe said on January 21 that support for a constitutional amendment that would protect the institution of marriage from being altered by judicial fiat was a ‘mean-spirited measure’ that would ‘insert prejudice and discrimination into the U.S. Constitution.’  In doing so, the DNC has branded pro-family Democrats who support this measure as bigots.

 

“The effect of these decisions has been to leave pro-life and pro-family Democrats homeless.  They are not drawn to the Republican Party for a whole host of reasons—their natural inclination is to vote Democrat.  But now they are told they are anti-woman and bigots to boot.”

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004

Answers

Meh, no surprises. Welcome to the post-modern world, where words (like "Catholic") mean only what they're useful to mean.

I simply cannot vote for the president in this climate. Between the incumbent and the opposition, I would not be able to wash the blood off of my hands if I voted for either. It would be different if I had any faith that Bush was really pro-life, but I fear that he is not, for all of his moderate squalking.

-- Skoo (anonymous@God.bless), January 25, 2004.

Skoo, You cannot equate the liberation of Iraq with the murder of millions of innnocent children. If you are a Catholic you must do all in your power to stop abortion in the United States. This year, that means you vote for Bush. The choice is clear.

"And we think a society where 1 million unborn never see the day of their birth is in serious trouble." -United States Catholic Conference of Bishops

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

It would be different if I had any faith that Bush was really pro- life, but I fear that he is not, for all of his moderate squalking.

Sorry, I missed this. Bush signed the bill banning late term abortion. I think Bush proved he was anti-abortion and Kerry proved he was pro-abortion with these actions.

On the other hand, Kerry did not vote for or against the banning of the partial birth abortion bill. Instead he co-sponsored an ammendment that affirmed "The decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right should not be overturned."

Kerry, who says he is Catholic, as I have mentioned before, is pro- abortion. He has proven this with his voting record.

"Unless we recover the zeal and the spirit of the first century Christians - unless we are willing to do what they did and to pay the price they paid, the future of our country, the days of America, are numbered" -Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Bill,

I know there is no issue with the same weight as ending the abortion holocaust. But I do not trust Bush and I believe he deliberately pulls his punches with respect to abortion. IMO, he is as likely to keep abortion alive (so that he has an issue that will get him more votes) as he is to sign a pro-life bill. His platform and his campaign are worthless if he has no integrity, and his behavior on other issues--including Iraq--make me believe that he is no more trustworthy than Nixon.

I would never vote Democrat; if worse comes to worst, I will abstain from the presidential vote.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), January 26, 2004.

anon, He already did sign an anti-late term abortion bill. He has proven his support. He is a politition, like all of them are. Everthing they all do is for votes or some other special interest. In this case, he is on our side.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

Billie Nelson, One party, The Democrats, is on the side of pro-choice, killing the infant in the womb

the other(Republicans) favors war, killing the infant turned adult .

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), January 26, 2004.

Elpidio,

There is an important distinction: one is an act of war, and the other is a law permitting murder. The second is essentially evil at its core; the first is only a contingent evil.

Bill, I understand that he has signed the bill into law, which is definitely a Good Thing, but it does not earn my trust. I do not think Bush is an honest man.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), January 26, 2004.

Bill, I understand that he has signed the bill into law, which is definitely a Good Thing, but it does not earn my trust. I do not think Bush is an honest man.

As they say, actions speak louder than words. So far, so good with Bush. Can't say the same for Democrats. If my choice is someone like Bush or a murderer like one of those running on the Democratic side right now, my moral choice is already decided. I don't have to trust Bush, just know he will stop some of the abortions.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

You want to talk about murdering people?

When Bush was Governor of Texas, he allowed a mentally retarted person (with an IQ of less than 60) to be executed. In fact, the European Union even sent him a letter accusing Texas of a human rights violation. He completely ignored it. It takes a very arrogant man to ignore the heads of state of oevery country in Europe.

And the war in Iraq? How much blood do you think Bush is willing to spill on either side? The answer: he doesn't care...it's not his kids going to die...it's Vietnam all over again...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 27, 2004.

Slander is typical of liberal commies like "Comrade Anti-Bush Bleh." Every single thing he just said is wrong. The stuff about Iraq is patently absurd, so it doesn't even need refutation. But lest anyone be fooled about his other falsehoods, I will endeavor to set the record straight.

This is from a November 2001 "New York Times" article:
President Bush said today that an individual who is mentally retarded should not be executed ...
"We should never execute anybody who is mentally retarded," President Bush said, according to a transcript of the remarks provided by the White House. He went on, "And our court system protects people who don't understand the nature of the crime they've committed nor the punishment they are about to receive."

The slanderer refers to John Penry when he speaks of Governor George Bush allowing "a mentally retarted person (with an IQ of less than 60) to be executed." This is misleading in two ways. {1} It was the convict's lawyers who characterized him as "having an IQ of 50 to 60 and the reasoning capacity of a 7-year-old" (according to CBS). His intelligence was not numerically graded by the prosecution, so the Slanderer is assuming the self-serving correctness of Penry's lawyers (a very risky leap of faith, given the low standard of ethics in so many defense attorneys). {2} A low IQ number does not necessarily prove gross retardation, but can result from grave ignorance of facts and lack of skills, due to poor education.

What matters is not the numerical IQ of a person, but whether or not the person knew that what he was doing was seriously wrong, and that he could be severely punished for it. The court system (judge and jury) found in the affirmative on these two points. As CBS noted, "prosecutors said Penry is ignorant, not retarded. Texas Attorney General John Cornyn said Penry is 'a schemer, a planner and can be purposefully deceptive.'"

CONCLUSION: Plan to disregard all that "Anti-Bush" has said and will say about President George W. Bush. (And seriously doubt anything that "Anti-Bush," an ex-Catholic, pro-sodomy potty-mouth has to say on any subject.)

-- (Pro-Bush@Catholic.com), January 27, 2004.

We are talking about the murder of millions of innocent children, not executing people who committed murder. You cannot equate the two. The murder of innocents may be the worse act a human being can do. The mass murder of innocents is horrendous and must be stopped. Whatever we as Catholics do, we must do all in our power to stop this.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 27, 2004.

I come from a long line of Democrats. I'd like to be one, I really would. Their party holds nothing for me though: abortion on demand, promotion of homosexuality, higher taxes, stifled trade, weak national defense. Nothing for me.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 27, 2004.

Conservative American Republican Evangelical Vengeful Protestant morality, (the basis for the Republican mindset) rears its ugly political head yet it has little to do with Catholic morality.

One standard for sexual morality, moral relativism for EVERYTHING else in life, especially regarding social/economic moral issues. Its as though that section of the catetchism is missing from American Conservative Catholics education.

Anti Bush do not be decieved by these people are serving two Gods and it is clear which God they place first. Pope Bush.They agree with very little of what Catholics believe regarding social/economic justice and serve only the almighty greenback.

My advice is to take a little time searching for Church documents to realy make these so called Catholics bristle.They disgaree with just about any social justice document producded by the the Church, its very easy to dig these up. Sit back and watch them squirm as they vainly try and rationalise their dissent from Christs teachings. Very amusing to watch.

Bill youre sailing close to moral relativism yourself never forget one of the most important messages of Pope John Paul II's time THE DEFENSE OF EVERY LIFE based around the philosophy of the face, in that the face reveals the person. Please take the time to read his thoughts on government sanctioned executions.

As for John Penry and Johns desperate attempts at rationlisation.That he was mentally retarded is beyond doubt and not contested, the use of the term "gross" by John is an emotional subjective term attempting to undermine what is an accepted objective assement of mental retadation. His irrational nonsensical post highlights just how far these conservative evangelical protestants will go to serve their first God.

As a result of the Penry Case....

"In 1989, the American Bar Association established a policy opposing the execution of those with mental retardation. The ABA held that execution of such individuals is unacceptable in a civilized society, irrespective of their guilt or innocence. The ABA joined a number of other national organizations - including veteran diplomats of the American Foreign Service, the United States Catholic Conference, the American Association on Mental Retardation, the American Psychological Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union - in filing amicus briefs with the Supreme Court on behalf of Daryl Atkins, a Virginia death row inmate with an IQ of 59."

Oh BTW John in case you didnt realise in 2002 The U.S. Supreme Court Declares the Execution of Persons with Mental Retardation Unconstitutional. Your job is to try and understand why.

Anti Bush in the unlikely event John tries to dig himself in further please use resources on this page

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=28&did=176

Peace

-- will the real BS spreader please stand up (old testament nut cases@BS.com), January 27, 2004.

underline off

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 27, 2004.

I'm not saying that the murder of innocent children is ok. I think it's appalling. But I realize that that is only my opinion and that others see it quite differently, and although I think their argument is ulitmately wrong they make a few good points here and there. Therefore, I think that the choice should be left up to the individual. Those who beleive abortions are wrong don't have to get them.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 28, 2004.

I think that the choice should be left up to the individual. Those who beleive abortions are wrong don't have to get them.

I can't go along with that. It is like saying 'I think that the choice should be left up to the individual. Those who beleive murder is wrong don't have to murder.' It does not make sense, morally. It is simply very distuctive to a society to think this way.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 28, 2004.

I traveled to the USSR in the 80s when it was still the "evil empire". While I was there I talked to our guide who was intensely interested in our form of government. I told her I was in the republican party but could vote for any party --this baffled her. I explained the parties this way.

Democrats believe that everything you do is someoneelses or government's responsibility.

They are pro-abortion because people should not be held responsible for their sexual indiscretions.

They are against the death penalty because all criminals come from broken homes, are minorities, had distant fathers etc so they are not to be held responsible for their actions.

They believe the top 1% of wage earners should pay 37% of the total US tax burden.

They believe people succeed in this country BECAUSE of government.

Republicans (real ones) believe the individual is responsible for his/her actions.

Thus they are or should be pro-life and pro-death penalty.

They believe in limited goverment which means limited taxes (George Bush the second forgot this and has decided to be Santa Claus)

Republicans believe in success DESPITE government.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

What is odd about the political parties in the US is that their principles change, based upon, well, what the other party does. This 'magnetic flux' tends to lead to dramatic changes in platforms over time. The Republican party of today in no way resembles the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln. The Democratic party today in no way resembles the Democratic party of John F. Kennedy. We just need to live with the fact that if you are a life long Republican or Democrate, you are living with change, and probably change of a party away from what you really believe. Party loyalty really doesn't mean anything anymore.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 28, 2004.

I agree Bill. Today's republicans are yesterdays JFK Democrats. Bush seems to be considering becoming an FDR or LBJ Democrat. I will wait til he finishes his second term before casting my final judgement.

I am not sure what todays Democrats are. Secular Socialists I guess.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 28, 2004.

On abortion,

How about, instead of banning it altogether, we could offer incentives to carry the baby, such as tax breaks, more financial aid for these young single mothers, free counseling, ect.

Republicans beleive that a handfull of big corporations should have more power than the common man.

They beleive that the government should stay out of people's buisiness, except when they are jammong their morals down other people's throats.

They beleive that it's ok for big corporations to destroy the environment.

They beleive that patriotism means supporting your government no matter how many times it lies or how many innocent people it kills.

They beleive that a spolied rich kid who had daddy pull some strings to get him out of going to Vietnam and then went AWOL for the majority of his time in the National Guard is somehow capable of being commander-in-chief.

They beleive that the richest 1% should pay next to nothing in taxes.

They beleive that it is ok for several million Americans to be refused healthcare because they are too poor.

They support the Patriot Act, but think that anyone who wants to take away their assault rifles is attacking freedom.

They drive a gas-guzzling monstrosity the size of a tank that destroys the environment and forces us into imperialistic wars in the middle east, and they still have the nerve to hang a big American flag in the back window.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.

Bush seems to be considering becoming an FDR or LBJ Democrat. I will wait til he finishes his second term before casting my final judgement.

Bush is evolving before our eyes. I think 9/11 really got to him and he is really trying to be a good Christian at a time when he also feels his country needs a strong Commander and Chief. This is shaking up the fiscal conservatives because they thought he was one of them.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

The Bush campaign has even got a presence on the I nternet now!

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

Anti Bush,

Its hard for the class warfare Democrats to believe but the top 1% of Americans pay 37% of total tax revenue in this country. The top 5% pay over 50%. The IRS records prove this. The lowest 50% of wage earners pay only 4% of the tax burden. Who uses the tax money the most? The bottom half of wage earners. Robin Hood is alive and well in the Democratic party.

With 2 trillion dollars (which is $7,000) for every man woman and child in this country we SHOULD have health care in place. More taxes are not the answer though. A President needs to come along and go through the budget with a red pen and get rid of all the pork. I hope Bush does just that in a second term.

After 9/11 a president would be a fool if he didn't do everything to prevent an attack here in the USA. What if Hussein gave weapons to al-Quada? What if he developed Nukes? You know that if he had left him in power and there was a sarin gas attack linked to him the Democrats would scream for his head. Bush has to make tough decisions and I don't envy his position.

The current mess we find ourselves in is thanks to the incompetence of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. When our embassy staff was taken hostage in Tehran our territory was invaded. Jimmy proved that we were a paper tiger and Clinton continued this. If we had declared war on Iran for invading our territory (the embassy) we would likely have a much better world now.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 31, 2004.

Seems to me that the last two posts are irrelevant to the Catholic forum. This forum is gradually deteriorating into a Republican versus Democrat fighting arena, more suited to a political forum. I realise that politics does affect us in topics such as abortion, but the debate's now going off on a tangent into unadultarated politics!

-- A. Nonnymous (anon@anon.com), January 31, 2004.

Good posts, David F.!

"How about, instead of banning it altogether, we could offer incentives to carry the baby, such as tax breaks, more financial aid for these young single mothers, free counseling, ect."

Gee, Anti-Bush, we already have these incentives. They are called Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, Earned Income Credit, etc. That's already too much.

"They drive a gas-guzzling monstrosity the size of a tank that destroys the environment and forces us into imperialistic wars in the middle east, and they still have the nerve to hang a big American flag in the back window. "

When they make a fuel-efficient vehicle that holds real-sized people, and is comfortable for both children in carseats AND the poor souls on either side of them, I will buy one. I can't buy what isn't available.

"They support the Patriot Act, but think that anyone who wants to take away their assault rifles is attacking freedom."

Democrats support Anti-gun legislation, as long as THEY can still own guns, or can afford to employ personal security people--(remember Rosie?)

David F.,

"With 2 trillion dollars (which is $7,000) for every man woman and child in this country we SHOULD have health care in place. More taxes are not the answer though. A President needs to come along and go through the budget with a red pen and get rid of all the pork. I hope Bush does just that in a second term."

Health care for everyone could be reasonable for all if the main purveyors of substances for self-inflicted illnesses (i.e. alcohol, drugs and tobacco) were made to pay for all illnesses (including damages to others such as those caused by car wrecks driving under the influence of such substances) out of their profits. People should not have to be evaluated for any other medical conditions, period--you can't choose your parents, and should not be punished for that by insurance companies. If you use drugs illegally, you should have to provide the name of your supplier in order to be treated. That way, they can be put out of business.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 31, 2004.

David,

"Who uses the tax money the most? The bottom half of wage earners. Robin Hood is alive and well in the Democratic party."

Wait am minute...people who make more money pay more in taxes? We must stop this travesty at once!!!!

"A President needs to come along and go through the budget with a red pen and get rid of all the pork. I hope Bush does just that in a second term."

I totaly agree, but I doubt it will happen. A President would spen the better part of his term just sorting through the Pentagon's bloated budget. If a President really set his heart to it, he could cut billions upon biliions of dollars from it...but it will probably never happen. Bush sure won't be the one to do it.

"After 9/11 a president would be a fool if he didn't do everything to prevent an attack here in the USA."

Why? Bush profitted vastly from 9/11, both economicaly and politicaly. Not only has he made a killing in the stock market (the two industries who have profited in the past two years also happen to be the two industries Bush invests in...oil and defense), but he was able to whip the US up into a jingoistic furor. For practicaly a year after 9/11, everyone supported him. Anyone who didn't was a terrorist. At least that's how he put it. Bush and his Administration have used a 1984-esque tactic of saying "You're either with us or the terrorists". 9/11 was the best thing to happen to his Administration. Before 9/11, his Presidency was going nowhere fast. The Florida coup was still fresh in everyone's minds. He had a better chance of winning a grammy for best hip-hop album than getting reelected. But then two big buildings fall down, and suddenly it's unpatriotic not to support Bush (which is his main defense now..."We're in a war, you can't critisize me!").

"What if Hussein gave weapons to al-Quada?"

To beleive that there could be a connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda is to greatly misinterpret Saddam's political beleifs. Saddam is a hardcore secularist. He does not beleive in radical Islam (in fact, radical Islamists suffered greatly under his regime). Al Qaueda is made up of radical Islamists who support Iran's government. Saddam hates both the government of Iran and Osama bin Laden. Al Qaueda would be the last people Osama would do buisiness with. But that's not what Bush wants you to beleive. He wants you to think that they all have to be united against America because they're all Muslims. This is a gross simplification of the situation in the Middle east.

"You know that if he had left him in power and there was a sarin gas attack linked to him the Democrats would scream for his head."

No, if there was another terrorist attack in the United States that killed another 3,000 people, Bush would almost certainly get reelcted. People would break out the American flags and descend once again into the nationalistic catatonia advocated by the Bush Administration. We'd just sit back, tape an American flag to our SUV's and say we've done our part to help America while Big brother sits back and does all of the thinking for us and more of our civil liberties arode away beneath our feet.

Land of the Free indeed.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

Oops! Forgot to reply to GT. My bad.

"When they make a fuel-efficient vehicle that holds real-sized people, and is comfortable for both children in carseats AND the poor souls on either side of them, I will buy one. I can't buy what isn't available."

My mom did just fine with a minivan. It's not the most fuel- efficient thing on the road but it's the best alternative for a family vehicle and it sure as hell get's better gas mileage than a Chevy Subburban. Now, if your family goes camping a lot or does some other activity that requires a vehicle like that, I understand. But for the 90% of people who don't do any of those things and still own one, it's just socialy irresponsible. Gas-guzzling fascists. When I can afford it, I'm going to buy a Mini Cooper. Now that is a good car for someone who doesn't have a family to drive around. But if you have a family, I would suggest sticking with the minivan. Most of them have more room then SUV's anyway and get way better mileage.

"Democrats support Anti-gun legislation, as long as THEY can still own guns, or can afford to employ personal security people--(remember Rosie?)"

I agree with you there. Most Democrats are totaly hypocritical on the subject of guns. I was just pointing out that most Republicans are also hypocritical.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

Hi Anti-Bush,

We have a Honda Passport--which is one of the smaller ones you can get, and I would say that it is comparable to a minivan as far as MPG and cargo room and DH can drive it comfortably (some people are tall through the torso, not the legs, and therefore headroom clearance IS an issue...putting the seat back only accomodates leg room). We do live in an area where in the winter the 4wd is used, and we do go camping, though not as much as I'd like. No way would I own one of the larger SUVs. DH originally wanted a larger SUV, but he has admitted that he is very happy we bought this instead. I completely agree with you that most people who own SUVs DON'T need them. The same goes for that stupid business tax break that is encouraging people to buy Humvees and write them off as a business expense. Totally wrong!

I REALLY would prefer a proper station wagon (saw a well-kept Buick Roadmaster? with the fake wood trim) in the parish parking lot just this past Sunday, but they just don't seem to make really good ones any more.... The Subarus are cute, but just too small, both height and width-wise, and they don't get great gas mileage either....

Before kids we owned a Honda CRX that got 50mpg on the freeway, but since it was a 2-seater, insurance was high because insurance companies always assume that 2- seaters are "sports cars" (right, with a 4-cylinder engine, who are they kidding?). We miss it.

I support enforcing the gun laws we already have on the books. I really don't think we need any new ones. Criminals can already easily procure guns--making it more difficult for honest law-abiding citizens to get them for either personal protection or because they truly believe in the letter and the spirit of the 2nd Amendment is wrong.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 03, 2004.

To relate all this back to the original thread, I don't agree with everything the Republicans stand for either, but the Democratic party has just gone so far in the opposite direction that I can't relate to them.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 03, 2004.

The Democratic party has made the mass murder of innocent children a party platform. Until they stop advocating mass murder I can't see how any Catholic can vote for a Democrate. Either they pass laws in favor of mass murder, nominate judges in favor of supporting these murdering laws, or simply provide funding and support into the Democratic party machine to support this mass murder. No Democrate (even if they call themselves pro-life) are untarnished any more so than a Nazi Party member would be said to be untarnished.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 03, 2004.

"On abortion, How about, instead of banning it altogether, we could offer incentives to carry the baby, such as tax breaks, more financial aid for these young single mothers, free counseling, ect. "-AB

{SO... instead of bannign the Murder of innocent Babies, we plead with peopel and throw money at thedm in the hopes they wont abort over that collage party or sleazy one night stand in the motel, because it may interfere withhteir carreers or they dont waant to be burdened with a child... for those who come form backgrounds with money, this means little, and they will abort, btu they shoudl have this right, because its their bodies, and we cant ban abortion outright, can we Anti-Bush. Granted, the little baby has no say int he affair, and must be put to death for the indescriession of the mother, and usually for simpleu convneince, but thats not wrong enough to ban outright...}-ZAROVE

Republicans beleive that a handfull of big corporations should have more power than the common man. -AB

{No, they don't. No one really beleives htis except hard core buisnessmen......}-Zarove

"They beleive that the government should stay out of people's buisiness, except when they are jammong their morals down other people's throats."-AB

{Liberal democrates like to shove their morals down others throats. They arent content with allowign epopel to disagree with Homsoecxuality and abortion, you MUST eiher agree with and support thes htigns, or else you MUST shut up and not talk, afte rall, your bigoted hate speach agaisnt Homosexuality and a womans right to choice should NOT be allowed!!! sorry, this moral shoving seems to be a two way street...}-Zarove

"They beleive that it's ok for big corporations to destroy the environment. "-AB

{No, they don't. Again, many republicans are for environmental conservation, and even president Bush signed an environmental protection bill in his first year in office.}-Zarove

"They beleive that patriotism means supporting your government no matter how many times it lies or how many innocent people it kills. "- AB

{So do the Liberals who compose the Democratic Party of these days... they jut want to kill helpless, defenceless babies...as well as sponcering deaths around the globe int he same kjind of tyrannyy that you accuse the republicans of supporting.}-Zarove

"They beleive that a spolied rich kid who had daddy pull some strings to get him out of going to Vietnam and then went AWOL for the majority of his time in the National Guard is somehow capable of being commander-in-chief. "

{As opposed to an adulterous rapist and supectdd Mirderer that was his predessessor? Need I remind you of Vlintons ezarlier days, drihs, sex, and rock and roll... not to mention draft dodging... not that the others ar emuch better......}-Zarove

"They beleive that the richest 1% should pay next to nothing in taxes. "-AB

{I don't know about "They" , but I beleive that neither the democrat or republican system of taxationmakes sence. I beleive in a simpel system, simpley charge everyone a fair 10% of tyheir earnings. Therifre if you make 100 dollars, you pay 10, if 1000, you pay 100,, if 1000000, you pay 100000.Hows that for fair?}-Zarove

"They beleive that it is ok for several million Americans to be refused healthcare because they are too poor. "-AB

{Yet I, who had no practical income at the time I was shot, still managed, on PAST work efforts, to make social security disability.}- Zarove

"They support the Patriot Act, but think that anyone who wants to take away their assault rifles is attacking freedom. "-AB

{Most republicans I know are opposed tothe Patriot act.Don't confuse party leaders with a majority of the party.}-Zarove

"They drive a gas-guzzling monstrosity the size of a tank that destroys the environment and forces us into imperialistic wars in the middle east, and they still have the nerve to hang a big American flag in the back window."-AB

{More SUV Comments? Really, do we have, or even keep, statistics on rathe rmost rpeublicans int he USA actually drive SUV's? I think this wa sinvented...many republicans have smaller, more sensable cars, and many democratts have SUV's...go figure...but I dont think that this has much if anyhtign to do with politics. After all, anyone can buy an SUV. Just as anyone can buy a smaller Car.And look at me, I dotn even own a car. Unless you are willign to show some tangebkle link to the republian party and SUV's, like an ofifcial document showign the support of SUV's over other cars by the republican party, this is simpley silly complant.}-Zarove

"David, "Who uses the tax money the most? The bottom half of wage earners. Robin Hood is alive and well in the Democratic party." Wait am minute...people who make more money pay more in taxes? We must stop this travesty at once!!!! "-AB

{Again, I dont think the rich shoudl pay more percentage of hteir earnings than the poor, nor do I htink they need a tax break. I think a fair 10% is the best way...}-Zarove

"A President needs to come along and go through the budget with a red pen and get rid of all the pork. I hope Bush does just that in a second term." -David "I totaly agree, but I doubt it will happen. A President would spen the better part of his term just sorting through the Pentagon's bloated budget. If a President really set his heart to it, he could cut billions upon biliions of dollars from it...but it will probably never happen. Bush sure won't be the one to do it. "-AB

{I still say, fair ten percent of your earnings...}-Zarove

"After 9/11 a president would be a fool if he didn't do everything to prevent an attack here in the USA." -David "Why? Bush profitted vastly from 9/11, both economicaly and politicaly. "-AB {More cheap ringshots.Sorry, not buying it, for the same reaosn as last time...}-Zarove

"Not only has he made a killing in the stock market (the two industries who have profited in the past two years also happen to be the two industries Bush invests in...oil and defense), but he was able to whip the US up into a jingoistic furor. "-AB

{You know, the attack wasnt planned by Bush...}-Zarove

"For practicaly a year after 9/11, everyone supported him. Anyone who didn't was a terrorist."-AB

{OK, see, not everyone supported him. Further, he did do a good clean uo job initially.}-Zarove

"At least that's how he put it. Bush and his Administration have used a 1984-esque tactic of saying "You're either with us or the terrorists". 9/11 was the best thing to happen to his Administration."-AB

{1984...have you actually read this novel? Orwell's novel did NOT include the concept of absoluteism, and in fact was based on a world of Moral reletavism.}-Zarove

"Before 9/11, his Presidency was going nowhere fast. The Florida coup was still fresh in everyone's minds. He had a better chance of winning a grammy for best hip-hop album than getting reelected. But then two big buildings fall down, and suddenly it's unpatriotic not to support Bush (which is his main defense now..."We're in a war, you can't critisize me!"). "-AB

{Simplisyic and undersellign the real events...}-Zarove

"What if Hussein gave weapons to al-Quada?" "To beleive that there could be a connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda is to greatly misinterpret Saddam's political beleifs. Saddam is a hardcore secularist. He does not beleive in radical Islam (in fact, radical Islamists suffered greatly under his regime). Al Qaueda is made up of radical Islamists who support Iran's government. Saddam hates both the government of Iran and Osama bin Laden. Al Qaueda would be the last people Osama would do buisiness with. But that's not what Bush wants you to beleive. He wants you to think that they all have to be united against America because they're all Muslims. This is a gross simplification of the situation in the Middle east. "- AB

{Oddly, I aree, finally, cohesive thought.}-Zarove

"You know that if he had left him in power and there was a sarin gas attack linked to him the Democrats would scream for his head." "No, if there was another terrorist attack in the United States that killed another 3,000 people, Bush would almost certainly get reelcted. People would break out the American flags and descend once again into the nationalistic catatonia advocated by the Bush Administration. We'd just sit back, tape an American flag to our SUV's and say we've done our part to help America while Big brother sits back and does all of the thinking for us and more of our civil liberties arode away beneath our feet. "-AB

{I dont thin the tradgic loss of 3000 lives woudlcause me to buy an SIV Or stop thinking...}-Zarove

Land of the Free indeed.-AB

{Yes, well on tis I agree lol...then again, I am anti-american in sentement.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 05, 2004.

It's called following through. You can't just say "You're having the baby, and you're on your own!". What's the point of letting the child live if he/she's going to have a crappy life? I agree, the baby shouldn't be killed, but how much better is it to have him dig through the dumpster for Christmas dinner for most of his life. Now, if the family has money, that's a whole different story. If the family has money, then they should have to carry the baby to term. But if it's a poor woman who would become an even poorer single mother, it is our duty to help her and her child.

"Granted, the little baby has no say int he affair, and must be put to death for the indescriession of the mother, and usually for simpleu convneince, but thats not wrong enough to ban outright"

I understand. Although you do have to look at the other side of the argument, which is that in the early stages the fetus doesn't even have a brain yet...I still think it's wrong, as they will someday grow up to become walking, thinking people, but it's something to consider.

"No, they don't. No one really beleives htis except hard core buisnessmen......"

...who have the Republican Party in their pockets (granted, they have most of the Democrats too...I hate the two party system, but that's a debate for another time).

"They arent content with allowign epopel to disagree with Homsoecxuality and abortion, you MUST eiher agree with and support thes htigns, or else you MUST shut up and not talk, afte rall, your bigoted hate speach agaisnt Homosexuality and a womans right to choice should NOT be allowed!!! sorry, this moral shoving seems to be a two way street.."

Ok, there is a difference between allowing gay unions to happen and attempting to silence all oposition. I support allowing gay unions, as it doesn't impose on anyone else's freedom (not even your freedom to not like gay people...this is America and that's your right). But I think if you want to speak out against gay unions, go right ahead. More power to you. Nobody should pass a law against it. I think "hate speech" laws are stupid. If you want to rant on about why you hate black people, you are an evil, hatefull person, but nobody should have the right to stop you (although I have no problem with a black person getting up and kicking your ass...that's karma).

"No, they don't. Again, many republicans are for environmental conservation, and even president Bush signed an environmental protection bill in his first year in office"

Not the ones in office. Republican politicians pay lip service to the environment when Greenpeace starts breathing down their neck. Republicans usualy vote in favor of big buisiness, and buisinessmen want to be able to pollute the environment as much as they want.

"So do the Liberals who compose the Democratic Party of these days... they jut want to kill helpless, defenceless babies...as well as sponcering deaths around the globe int he same kjind of tyrannyy that you accuse the republicans of supporting"

I'm not really seeing a point here...what I was trying to say was that Bush tries to say that you aren't being patriotic if you don't support him and the war...in fact I beleive I remember reading something about Bush calling some of his critics unpatriotic because they didn't support his foreign policy...it was later revealed that the critics in question were firefighters who had helped rescue people from the World Trade center on 9/11. Talk about hypcoracy.

"As opposed to an adulterous rapist and supectdd Mirderer that was his predessessor? Need I remind you of Vlintons ezarlier days, drihs, sex, and rock and roll... not to mention draft dodging... not that the others ar emuch better......"

As I've said before, if you want to debate a Clinton fan, you're talking to the wrong guy. Yeah Clinton wasn't such a great guy either. A step up from Bush, but not by much. But it is funny to see all the conservative pundits attempting to explain why this drug using, draft-dodging President is somehow more ethical than the last drug using, draft-dodging President. Persoanly, I don't see anything wrong with dodging the draft, but to then stand up in front of America and act all gung-ho about the war is just dishonest.

"Again, I dont think the rich shoudl pay more percentage of hteir earnings than the poor, nor do I htink they need a tax break. I think a fair 10% is the best way...>

Sounds good.

"You know, the attack wasnt planned by Bush..."

Probably not. But you never know. I think that Bush is at the very least guilty of allowing the attacks to happen through innaction, either intentionaly or unintentionaly. At the very most...

"1984...have you actually read this novel? Orwell's novel did NOT include the concept of absoluteism, and in fact was based on a world of Moral reletavism."

What are you, my English teacher??? Yes, I read the book. There's no deeper meaning in "You're with us or the terrorists". I'm saying that that's what Bush is doing and it's a term characteristic of many dictatorships. I drew up a nice list of parralels between Bush and Big Brother. If you'd like to see it, email me.

"Simplisyic and undersellign the real events..."

Let's hear your unsimplified version of the truth, oh great one.

"I dont thin the tradgic loss of 3000 lives woudlcause me to buy an SIV Or stop thinking..."

No one bought an SUV because of 9/11...that was part of a bigger trend of Americans...but it did cause people to stop thinking...a people in fear are the easiest to rule.

"I am anti-american in sentement."

Amen to that.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 05, 2004.

-- hopefully (bold@off.now), February 05, 2004.

"It's called following through. You can't just say "You're having the baby, and you're on your own!". What's the point of letting the child live if he/she's going to have a crappy life? I agree, the baby shouldn't be killed, but how much better is it to have him dig through the dumpster for Christmas dinner for most of his life. Now, if the family has money, that's a whole different story. If the family has money, then they should have to carry the baby to term. But if it's a poor woman who would become an even poorer single mother, it is our duty to help her and her child."

I think it should be a lot easier to adopt a child. There is NO need in this country for people to be paying $30,000 to adopt a child from China or some other country because they have to jump through so many hoops here to adopt American babies.

And it shouldn't matter whether the mother is poor or not--if the baby is not wanted, carry it to term (perhaps at either the cost of the state or the cost of the adopting parents) and give it up for adoption. Also, minority groups should NOT be whining about white parents adopting minority children--gee, you'd rather they were stuck in orphanages or the foster care system?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 05, 2004.

Still no reply, Zarove?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 14, 2004.