[Sarabaracuda]

The only reasoning abilities which are selective are yours. I never said I support abortion. All I said was that it is sometimes beneficial to the conservative movement to support pro-abortion candidates if said candidates are more conservative than liberal and a pro life candidate cannot win in a certain district/ state.

I know what the platform states and I agree with it, but it is not practically enforceable in the party. Idealogical statements have their place, and practical politics had its own.

Let me ask you, exactly what do you consider pro-life? If someone supports leaving abortion to the states or supports abortion in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother's life, are they still pro-life in your eyes?

The problem with people like you is that you all have different litmus tests about different things whether it is abortion, arms control, immigration, etc. You would never be able to form a working and effective coalition politically because you would alienate one another and most everyone else that does not agree with your pet issue. If you had your way, we would be lucky to have five members of Congress who were actually conservative. There would be chaos on the right and the Dems would control the country. Ideological purity has no place in real politics.

[JRandomFreeper]

There would be chaos on the right and the Dems would control the country.

There is.

They do.

Your 'practical politics' isn't winning you crap.

/johnny