Posted on 03/11/2005 6:32:41 PM PST by Sola Veritas
You need to respect the fact that everyone has their certain "litmus test" issues. For instance, would you vote for a man who held your positions on domestic issues, but was very soft on the war on terror?
Taking on Obama wasn't political suicide. But it was very costly for Dr. Keyes personally. And those costs came at the hands of three groups of people:
Democrats
The liberal media establishment
Traitorous Republicans
Now, let me give you the order in which they were the most vicious and hostile:
Traitorous Republicans
The liberal media establishment
Democrats
'Course, the Dems didn't HAVE to do much of anything...traitorous Republicans and the hostile liberal media had already done the work for 'em.
Illinois is the most politically screwed up state I've ever seen...the corruption and lack of principle is in both parties.
However, you didn't address the primary against Bush scenario.
I did earlier.
I think it would have been foolish in the extreme, with no positive result.
... the single issue fanatics will have no problem with that.
What about the EO?
In which case I suppose you would support pressing murder charges against all women who've had abortions where their lives were not in danger. And the doctors and medical assistants as well.
Furthermore we should have trials to determine if the Doctor was correct to say the woman's life was unquestionably in danger.
Murder is murder.
I do think murder charges should be pressed against women in such cirumstances, and against everyone complicit in the killing as well. I'm not sure about the doctors-on-trial thing, but I like the thrust of it. We should make sure that a law against abortion isn't circumvented by dishonest doctors.
That's the way I think it ought to be. But as things stand now, it is impossible to pass any sort of law against abortion, and so none of this is possible.
If these kind of people give us a Commander in Chief named Hillary Clinton (and they might), they will regret it more than they ever imagined. Unfortunately, they won't be the only ones who have to live with the consequences of that move.
Please don't take your anger out on little helpless ones because of the harsh language of some.
Cognitive Dissonance is the pro-abort goal for those who still see the murder of little people as the murder of little people. They want us to question ourselves and our sense of reality: "Can it really be that bad? Are 43% of women really murderers? It sounds so surreal, it can't POSSIBLY be true." The obvious temptation: let's redefine murder to make ourselves feel comfortable. THAT WAY, we don't have to face the grisly specter that, in our society, murder of innocent human beings is commonplace.
Imagine what the "good Germans" would have thought if the Nazi Party's schemes were in the open before the end of the war.
Dear Trinity_Tx,
I don't recall having defended any posters here, or any posts made herein. They're not relevant to what I said, nor to the falsehoods that you spewed.
Complaining about another poster's perceived lack of willingness to compromise on the issue of abortion, you said:
"It is your 'strategy' of dogmatism and rudely offending everyone who you even think veers even slightly away from your position that hasn't even been able to get rid of partial birth abortion - which would be easy to outlaw if the fight against it weren't bogged down by the heavy-handed, 'no compromise' baggage."
This is a load of dreck. It just isn't true. Your assertion doesn't have any foundation. How could it be that a "strategy of dogmatism" has prevented the banning of partial birth abortion, when partial birth abortion bans have been passed in many states and on the federal level, as well?
The only thing holding them back are a majority of black-robed demons who sit on the Supreme Court.
It may be that some posters here may be unwilling to compromise, and it may be that such a strategy may be ineffective. However, that has no relationship to the fact that partial birth abortion has not been banned.
I pointed this out to you.
First rule when you find you've dug yourself into a hole: stop digging.
You didn't follow that rule, TT. You then dug further, blaming the fascist actions of the majority of the Supreme Court on pro-lifers:
"If pro-lifers worked to elect politicians who respected the constitution, rather than blowing them off because they didn't toe the whole moment of conception, no compromise line, that wouldn't be a problem."
I pointed out that this just doesn't track with the actual history of the last 32 years. It doesn't track with reality. You have allowed your emotions, your heated feelings against people you perceive to be uncompromising and foolish to cause you to devise a version of reality that is a parallel universe to the real one.
As I pointed out to you, TT, pro-lifers have been integral to the coalitions that elected President Ronald Wilson Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George Walker Bush.
And it is pro-ABORTION voters who abandoned us in 1992 and 1996 that elected Mr. Clinton.
Your history is backwards.
As for the issue of compromise, whatever your feelings about the posters in this thread or on others, the actual facts of the last 32 years are that pro-lifers, as a movement, have sought every compromise, every small gain, every slice of bread from the loaf, every slice of salami. And we have won, time after time after time. Big wins and little wins.
Except in one place: The house of death known as the Supreme Court. There, we have seen most of our victories, big and small, wiped away.
This isn't from lack of effort to compromise. It's from the adamant intransigence of a fascist elite who believe that they know better than we unwashed masses, who believe that it is necessary, for "individual autonomy" and "self-definition" that women be able to procure the death of their unborn children.
And it isn't because pro-lifers haven't supported politicians who respect the Constitution. We have supported such individuals. In fact, we are often criticized because we usually decline to support Republicans who DON'T respect the Constitution, people like Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, and others.
Your rantings against the entire pro-life movement, because of your frustrations with posters here at FreeRepublic suggests someone raving hysterically at his or her own shadows in the cave, by the firelight.
Get a grip.
Study a little bit of the history of the last 32 years.
Take a break.
Drink less caffeine.
sitetest
Get with the '80s. We pro-lifers have shown our flexibility, our willingness to compromise, our political savvy time and time again. But we are thwarted by a court that has appointed itself god of America.
You are not informed about American foreign policy, which is why you must conjure up some vague philosophy to explain it. As someone who has worked almost 30 years in foreign affairs, I find your analysis shallow and sophmoric.
You know, dear sitetest, I have not been the one who has stooped to the personal insults and sarcasm here, but you have in your posts to me, this last one especially. Yet you accuse me of raving hysterically?
I have studied history, my opinions are educated and polished daily as these issues are at the forefront of my daily life in politics. Thus, I have made my points, and they are sound - no matter how verbose or full of insults yours are in return.
It is not only a matter of who is elected president, but the congressmen who would confirm them, as well as the national outcry. When you have the vitriol we've seen here, it alienates support. You may believe those are mere shadows in a cave, but I believe they seriously hinder the agenda.
Let's agree to disagree, or walk away however angry you choose - have the last word. I refuse to continue discussion with someone who has been so personally insulting to me.
Dear Trinity_Tx,
Whatever history you've studied, it is not the history of the United States since January 22, 1973.
If you believe that it was something wrong with the pro-life movement that caused the Party of Satan to destroy the nomination of Robert Bork, then you are wrong. Instead, we got Anthony Kennedy.
If you believe that is was something wrong with the pro-life movement that gave us David Souter, then you are wrong. We were given Mr. Souter because of what the Party of Satan did to Judge Bork. If you believe that the actions of the Party of Satan are the fault of the pro-life movement, then you have descended to something analogous to blaming the victim.
If you believe that the walking away from the first President Bush of supply-siders and other brands of conservatives in 1992 was caused by pro-lifers, then you are wrong. Do you remember, "Read my lips, no new taxes."?
The folks who left President Bush were those for whom economic policy is more important than the matter of abortion.
Pro-lifers continued to support President Bush. It was pro-abortion country-club Republicans who walked away from President Bush, and who voted either for H. Ross Perot or Bill Clinton.
That failure of support from the wing of the party NOT committed to life gave us Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
"Thus, I have made my points, and they are sound..."
You haven't made any point supported by facts. Thus, they aren't sound.
"matter how verbose or full of insults yours are in return."
I apologize if you take my blunt pointing out that your analysis is out of touch with reality as an insult.
"Let's agree to disagree, or walk away however angry you choose - have the last word."
Well, if I were angry, I might walk away.
I think you're projecting. ;-)
sitetest
That's good, because your post to Trinity was indeed quite rude and condescending. I even scrolled back to see what he/she had said to provoke such a response - and found nothing.
I think we can all agree that discussions on this topic would be a lot more productive if that sort of approach could be avoided.
Do you take issue with the tone or the content, because I think the latter is spot-on, if a little condescending.
I thought both posters were making some good and reasonable points (and in an important way, I agree with Trinity_Tx - that electing Hillary Clinton is a terrible price to pay for disagreeing with Condoleezza Rice on parts of this debate), but only one was rude and condescending.
At first I ignored it, but when I saw that person suggest the other was imagining it and insulted for no reason, I decided to say something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.