"Who is more pro-life? You and your pro-life talk or Pete Sessions and his pro-life walk? Hasn't he earned more respect from this site of all places than what he has been served up here?""
Pete Sessions may not have a prolife walk. I have seen too many politicians vote prolife because it is the political expedient thing to do. But at some point they end up disappointing those very voters who were counting on them.
You accuse those who don't agree with you of having a pro life talk. If we were to vote for a pro abortion candidate like Rudy Giulianni, you would be right! But my pro life walk means that I would not now or not ever vote for Giulianni or any other politician who is not adamantly opposed to abortions.
The fact that Pete Sessions would endorse Giulianni means that deep down he wasn't ever that opposed to abortion but was only pandering to his constituents. What a pity!
You have mail:)
...ummm... might it ALSO mean that he instead realizes that in the order of priorities national survival against the creeping Islamofascist and Iranian nuclear terror is an issue paramount over all others, hence the man most trustworthy to handle it should be elected?
Its a rhetorical question. I do not expect you to answer it honestly, because then you'd have to take back a lot of stuff said on this thread already.