I'm not backing down from my position.
I'm
a) denying the position you want to impose upon me WRT generalizing and insulting them all. I have friends who are also pro-life, who work in our crisis pregnancy center, and I'm saying nothing more than they say themselves all the time.
b) disagreeing with your contention that there has been no serious problem with, or consequence of, turning off so many of those who would otherwise join the fight to ban the most egregious abortions.
Answering a poll is not the same as active support.
My point from the beginning has been that, if the pro-life movement had had more of those people actively supporting them, then there would have been a mandate long ago.
I will "back down" to the extent that I can't be positive those black-robed maggots would still be on the bench. But, you can't be any more positive they would, and I think it is misguided to blow that off and continue the behavior we see here.
You say the behavior we see here is an anomaly, and that it hasn't hindered change, and you apparently think sarcastically insulting me for saying otherwise is more worth your time than criticizing their behavior.
I think you are wrong, and in over-reacting and focusing your sarcastic and insulting ire on me, rather than those who give the cause a bad image, you just make things worse.
Anyway, we disagree. That doesn't mean we had to knock heads or should continue. Mine hurts now, lol so I'm going to go do something more productive and fun... like laundry! ; )
Dear Trinity_Tx,
Certainly you've backed down.
You initially blamed the failure to pass a partial birth abortion ban on the instransigence of pro-lifers. Whether in small numbers or large, it just isn't true. The bans have been passed.
When I pointed out they only failed in effect because of the courts, you then changed the goal posts and said it's because of the justices we have because pro-lifers won't support candidates who respect the Constitution.
After my eyes nearly fell out over that ridiculous canard, I pointed out that pro-lifers were vital parts of the coalitions that have elected every Republican president post-Roe as well as hosts of conservative Republicans. And even some RINOs - for the cause of party unity.
I also pointed out that the ONLY time that Republicans haven't been elected president since then were when OTHER PARTS of the Republican coalition left the fold.
If you wanna blame Clinton on someone, it's not the pro-lifers. It was the country-club Republicans who voted for Mr. Clinton or Mr. Perot, and folks for whom supply-side economics, or not raising taxes is the most important issue. For those of us for whom life is the paramount issue, we hung tough. We voted for President Bush in 1992 and Sen. Dole in 1996.
"My point from the beginning has been that, if the pro-life movement had had more of those people actively supporting them, then there would have been a mandate long ago."
No, that was your third or fourth position. I lost count. You keep changing the goal posts.
Even so, I've shown you that the mandate exists. And has for many years.
What stops things are the pro-abortion elites in the judiciary, the media, academia, medicine, and elsewhere.
Large majorities of ordinary, average Americans support significant, real restrictions on abortion that would outlaw the vast majority of abortions.
But the elites of our country are mostly diametrically opposed to that view of things.
And guess who wields the power in the short term?
When the power elites all firmly hold to a position, it can take generations to change courses.
When doctors go in front of Congress and lie about partial birth abortion, and the lamestream media do nothing to expose it, when courts refuse laws to take effect that were passed with OVERWHELMING support in Congress, when these elites see their version of America threatened, it's an uphill battle.
Nonetheless, I think we'll eventually get to the top of the mountain.
"I will 'back down' to the extent that I can't be positive those black-robed maggots would still be on the bench. But, you can't be any more positive they would, and I think it is misguided to blow that off and continue the behavior we see here."
Well, I'm pretty certain that if even all the pro-lifers who are mean and nasty were all sweetness and light, Judge Bork would not have been confirmed, Sandra Day O'Connor would have been confirmed, David Souter would have been confirmed, Anthony Kennedy would have been confirmed, and Bill Clinton would have been elected - twice - and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer would be on the court.
Bottom line - Bork was "borked" by liars in the Senate and their henchmen in the media. Do you forget the lengths to which they went to try to discredit this man? Do you remember that they illegally uncovered his LIBRARY RECORDS??
Do you remember Dan Blather or Brokaw or the Communist Pig Jennings calling for any investigations over the violation of Judge Bork's civil rights? No? Me neither.
Was THAT the fault of the pro-life movement?
Give me a break.
And sadly, Justice Kennedy was pro-life when he went to the court, but the influence of the power elites appears to have swayed him. Kinda sad. He will answer on the Last Day.
"You say the behavior we see here is an anomaly, and that it hasn't hindered change,..."
No, that isn't what I said at all. In fact, in a sense, I said the opposite. I said, this is typical INTERNET behavior, but that INTERNET behavior is different from behavior off the Internet. Please don't further misrepresent what I say.
"...and you apparently think sarcastically insulting me for saying otherwise is more worth your time than criticizing their behavior."
I have not written one word in sarcasm, Trinity_Tx. I've meant straight up every word I've written. I've even kept to a bare minimum words that are hyperbolic or especially rhetorical.
As to what folks have said here, I've told you, I discount a lot of Internet trash talk.
But I don't generally let falsehoods about the pro-life movement go unanswered.
"I think you are wrong, and in over-reacting and focusing your sarcastic and insulting ire on me, rather than those who give the cause a bad image, you just make things worse."
Again, I haven't said anything in sarcasm. I meant everything I've written, pretty much straight up.
As well, although I'm offended by your posting and slurs against the pro-life movement, and do think you ought to apologize for them, I don't have any ire toward you.
"Anyway, we disagree. That doesn't mean we had to knock heads or should continue. Mine hurts now, lol so I'm going to go do something more productive and fun... like laundry! ; )"
Enjoy your laundry.
sitetest