Posted on 11/08/2002 3:06:20 PM PST by Jean S
It was a stunning, record-breaking night. George Bush is the first President in 68 years to gain seats in his first midterm election. Historically, the party in the White House loses seats in the midterm election. This is true even in wartime: Franklin D. Roosevelt lost 50 House seats and eight Senate seats 10 months after Pearl Harbor.
Though Democrats gleefully cite the midterm election of 1998 when the Democrats picked up six House seatsand no Senate seatsthat was Clintons second midterm election. Republicans had already realized all their midterm gains in Clintons first midterm election. In the very first election after people got a look at Clinton in 1994, Republicans picked up 52 seats in the House, eight seats in the Senate, 11 governorships and 12 state legislative chambers. Not a single Republican incumbent lost.
Thanks to Clinton, the 94 Republican sweep marked the first time in half a century that Republicans had a majority in the House. (It was one of many historic moments in the Clinton Administrationanother being "First President accused of rape within weeks of being impeached.") That sweep meant voters in about 50 congressional districts had done something they had never done before in their entire lives: Vote Republican in a congressional election. There was no reason to expect lifelong Democrats in those districts to keep voting Republican in every successive election.
To the contrary, Democrats should have won back a lot of the seats they lost in 1994. By the standard of historical averages, in the 1998 midterm election, the Democrats should have won back 22 House seats. Instead they won only six seats. The average midterm loss this past century is 30 seats in the House. Clintons average was 46.
The media billed the Democrats paltry gain in 1998 as a victory for Clinton and revulsion with impeachment for the same reason they say Bush "stole" the presidential election. Liberals love to lie. (Someone should write a book about that.)
By contrast, in Bushs first midterm election last week, Republicans made spectacular gains all over the country. It was such a blowout that over on CBS, Dan Rather had to keep retelling viewers about Sen. Lautenbergs victory in New Jersey. (Good thing Election Day finally came without another Democrat realizing the voters were on to him, or the Democrats might have had to unwrap Tutankhamen.)
All night, victories rolled in for Republicans, even shocking victories no one had expected. They picked up seats in the House and Senate. Republicans won a double whammy with Democrat-target Jeb Bush winning in Florida and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend losing in Maryland. Democratic bête noire Katherine Harris won her congressional election. In stunning upsets, Republicans won the governorships in Hawaii and Georgia. The Republican juggernaut could not be stopped.
Democrats may be forced to shut down operations as a party and re-enter politics under a different name. The party formerly known as "the Democratic Party" will henceforth be doing business under the name "the Abortion Party."
That would have the virtue of honesty. Love of abortion is the one irreducible minimum of the Democratic Party. Liberals dont want to go to war with Saddam Hussein, but they do want to go to war to protect Roe v. Wade.
Inasmuch as George Bush rather than Barbra Streisand will be picking our federal judges, even now liberals are sharpening their character assassination techniques. People for the American Wayrepresenting Americans up and down the Malibu beachfrontare already lining up lying Anita Hills to accuse Bushs judicial nominees of lynching blacks and burning crosses.
This is precisely the sort of Clintonian viciousness that Americans indicated they were sick of on election night. The Democrats motorcycle rally-cum-funeral in Minnesota for Paul Wellstone exposed the partys character in a pellucid, dramatic way. It was so revolting, people couldnt avert their eyes from the spectacle. The only moral compass liberals have is their own will to power. Even the deaths of three members of a family could not slow them down.
If the party formerly known as "the Democrats" doesnt like the factually correct "Abortion Party," how about "the Adultery Party"? Noticeably, the only incumbent Republican senator to lose was Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, who left his wife for a staffer a few years ago. Im proud to be a member of a party that still frowns on that sort of thing.
The end result of a Democratic Presidents being caught in an adulterous affair with an intern was: Two Republicans resigned from Congress. Meanwhile, the felon in the White House was revered as a latter-day George Washington by the Adultery Party. And consider that Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston were mere congressmen. Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart are deemed presidential material by the Adultery Party.
What a miserable party. Im glad to see their power end, and Im sure theyll all be perfectly comfortable in their cells in Guantanamo. As Jesse Helms said on Ronald Reagans election in 1980: God has given America one more chance.
Nonsense. I am presenting easily verifiable scientific fact. Fact which you choose to ignore. Here are some more scientific facts for you to ignore.
You choose to divert the argument into a philosophical discussion of "what is life" and "how can we know when it begins." I choose to stay in the empirical--which is devastating to the pro-abort position.
Can you prove that you are a human being? What makes you a human being? Lifeforce? A zygote has that. Unique DNA? A zygote has that. Ability to replicate? A zygote has that. A complete pattern of its fully matured form? A zygote has that.
Apparently you miss the point. I didn't. Can you maintain a position of neutrality on the issue of murder?
...because murder is provably wrong...
Prove it then. Prove to me in clearly stated objective terms that murder is wrong. What is wrong with it?
And isn't Nancy Pelosi from Maryland?
67 posted on 11/08/2002 7:22 PM EST by HIDEK6
Aren't they BOTH from Hell?
You say you don't know then you say you know.
What has really taken place? Unless you look at it through religious lenses, which I think is the case here.
Or you could take a look through a scientific lens and see this:
A human sperm with half of the DNA code of human life combines with a human egg with half the DNA code of human life. The two half strings of DNA combine to create a whole string of DNA. This new and complete string of DNA is unique. None has ever existed before exactly like it and none exactly like it will ever exist again. It has every detail of the matured lifeform at the moment it combines. One characteristic of that is the impetus to live. As long as it has nourishment and protection (the same requirements any adult lifeform has) it will grow. All lifeforms, including one celled organisms, naturally seek to sustain life and reproduce. At the moment of conception a human zygote is the product of a human sperm and a human egg, how can it be other than human?
At conception there is a being with 46 chromosomes that would test as human DNA and it begins to take in nutrients and grow which indicates it's alive. At conception there is a unique live being with human DNA. Science would not deny that. Why would we have to imagine that a soul enters the growing body at some other point and even if you don't believe in souls, it still leaves a growing, live, human body that began at conception.
I can kill you if I want to. By my definition you are not a human being. Therefore you do not have the rights of a human being. I believe that is the logic of slavemasters. You have your arbitrary definition of 'human being', I have mine. Since lifeforce, unique DNA and an ability to replicate your own cells according to the human pattern aren't good enough to satisfy your definition of 'human' I am on solid ground in defining you as not human. What else have you got to prove it?
Sperm and eggs do not have a unique DNA. They don't even have a complete copy of the parent DNA. They cannot replicate. A sperm cell cannot divide into two sperm cells or into a two celled sperm. Neither can an egg.
A zygote, the fertilized egg, does have a complete DNA and it is unique. It has the ability to replicate cells which will all also have that same unique DNA. It will never stop replicating cells for even a moment until it is dead whether it lives an hour or ninety years.
Think? This is the 21st Century, we don't have to imagine what happens at conception anymore we can watch it under a microscope. Two incomplete strings of DNA with no other relation than that they both came from human beings, one male one female, come together, and with no coercion, combine to make a complete and viable string of HUMAN DNA that is impelled by its own design and force to live and grow. If that isn't magical what is?
Einstein once said; "Either everything is a miracle or nothing is." I tend to agree. Either that living, growing zygote is a human being with sacred rights of its own or no one is and there is no such thing.
You're a twist individual, ravinson, thus you use the typical socialist mindset to try and twist that which you doi not even marginally comprehend. [Get help. Get help professionsal help; your current meds are obviously not working.]
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.