Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE [BARF ALERT - ANTI-GOP PROPAGANDA]
NewsWithViews.com ^ | May 9, 2003 | By David Brownlow

Posted on 08/02/2003 10:39:40 PM PDT by Uncle Bill

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 921-940 next last
To: .30Carbine

Kirk: "Bones, are you saying that Spock is really DarkDrake?"
McCoy: "He's Fred, Jim."

781 posted on 08/07/2003 6:37:13 AM PDT by TigersEye (He is a lesion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Well. let's just say I disagree with your post.

There is a piece of legislation. We've reacted to it differently. I have some concerns about it you don't share. That's all ok. This is politics.

It doesn't mean that either of us is motivated by irrationality, hatred of FR, the GOP, President Bush, or anything else. Nor does it mean that one of us is more at odds with God than the other.

We've gotten along in the past, and while you're clearly passionate about this topic, I don't sense any malice in your posts. I hope, however, that in the future you might contemplate your reaction here a bit, and reconsider some of the rhetorical excess.

Regards


782 posted on 08/07/2003 7:23:30 AM PDT by Sabertooth (Dump Davis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"That you're a blustering liar and a fraud?"

No Toothy...that's YOUR crowd, isn't it?

From the person that said I had a thousand screen names. LOL

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The psychosis appears to be in advanced stages.

783 posted on 08/07/2003 7:48:33 AM PDT by Sir Gawain (Welcome to my bozo filter, fatboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth; Mo1; Jim Robinson; Luis Gonzalez; cpforlife.org
Saber, you wrote, "This is one of those questions we won't be able to answer unless we attempt the action. Incrementalism is fine, at times, but there are also times to strike boldly. It's unwise to overrely on one tactic or the other." We have a winner in the 'reasoning it out' category! Good post, Saber! This bill is the incrementalism that leads directly to a bill banning all abortion where the prenatal little one is able to live outside the womb ... viable (now at 20 weeks in 35 to 40 % of the cases; and this will change dramatically once the Japanese artificial womb is tried with human babies ... it has kept a goat fetus alive for seventeen weeks, so far).

The attitude of the nation, the numbers in the Senate and House with a Republican in the WHite House, and a different complexion in the SCOTUS, all are vital aspects in rolling back three+ decades of death on demand reality. Every time a case hits the news that focuses upon the LIFE of the little ones (like Connor Peterson), the tide changes ever so slightly. It will not be long before a wave will be poised to wash the liberal socialist approach to death on demand right out of our national reality ... the insidiousness of liberal societal engineering is gradually coming clear to Americans as the harvest of dead relatives becomes more exposed.

If there is sufficient good left in America, abortion slaughter on demand will come to an end, albeit an incremental end. The next goal is a ban on all killing of viable little ones. [BTW, Mercuria is still pro-life, without a doubt. What she says about me or anyone else at FR is actually irrelevant; she's wrestling with political 'spectres', that's all.]

784 posted on 08/07/2003 11:22:39 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Like I said, I'm OK with incrementalism when that's the best available course, and also when it's genuine, and not a lipstick job on what's really incremental retreat. Republicans buy into the latter trap far too often.

But also we need to remember that there are times when it's best to get into a slugfest, with the full determination to win, and crush our opponents.

Their are many arts in political war.


785 posted on 08/07/2003 11:30:28 AM PDT by Sabertooth (Dump Davis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: DeSoto; Jim Robinson
This situation clearly speaks to the aspirations of Jim Robinson's determined efforts to add to the majority of both houses, by voting the 'rats out.

It is self evident that neither the left or the right has a majority. If one side did they would win all the national elections. Poll after poll after poll has shown that roughly 1/3 on the voters are on the left and 1/3 more are on the right and 1/3 are in the center. The Center is made up of RINOs and DINOs. It does not take a big stretch of the imagination to see that neither conservatives nor liberals ever have control of the the Federal Senate. If the Democrats elect more DINOs than the Republicans elect RINOs the Democrats have the most power in the Senate.

I am always amazed by those that want to run the RINOs out of the Republican Party. They would just become DINOs and let the Democrats rule forever.

If the Republican have 45 conservatives and 10 RINO's in the Senate and the Democrats have 35 Liberals and 10 DINOs in the senate, the Republicans rule. NO the Republicans would not be able to hold all the RINOs on every issue. But they could always get a few DINOs to make up for the loss of some RINOs. They would not win them all, but they would win a lot more than they lose.

The Senate under FDR had a ton of Southern DINOs. But FDR could always pick up a few RINOs to win on his issues when the conservative southern senators went off the reservation. LBJ did the same thing.

Reagan constantly argued for tolerance for RINOs. He said it this way.. A Republican who is with you 80 percent of the time is not your enemy. Reagan as always used words that appealed with out invoking the wrath of buzz words. But describing some Republicans as "those who are mostly with you" is another way to say RINO.

My point is there is never a way to garner a conservative majority .... or a liberal majority for that matter. The reason is clear. About a third of the population is not ideological. They do not vote based on ideology. Thinking that people can be taught or educated to be ideological is like educating a left handed person to be right handed. It does not work well at all.

Surprisingly some ideological people can be changed from the left to the right and vice versa. But getting a majority to one side or the other has proved very elusive. It is must more effective to structure the arguments of the right so they appeal to the non ideological center.

Let me give you a couple of Reagan examples. When Reagan described his economic policy as letting people keep more of their own money, he was appealing to the non ideological voter. Telling the non ideological voter that cutting marginal tax rates is a good think, won't get their support. Letting them keep more of their own money will. Cutting marginal tax rates is an ideological appeal. Cutting government regulations is an ideological appeal. Getting Government off your back is the non ideological appeal. Cutting Goverment Regulations is an ideological appeal. To persuade the center, it is not so much what you want to do, but how it is described that makes the difference. Getting the votes of the non ideological center is the ONLY road to success. The left is quite good at selling the center. "Taxing the rich", "Special Interests", "Under the control of rich, fat, cats"... are ways the Democrats appeal to the center.

But if I make no other point, I would urge the consideration of the fact that at no time in our history has the ideology of the left or right ever enjoyed a majority. About a third of the voters and politicians are died in the wool DINOs and RINOs. The party that gets a majority of their support rules on nearly all issues. The ideology that rules is the one that learns to structure the arguments for policies so they appeal to the centrists. Failure to recognize the need to appeal to the center results in continuous defeat. Belief that the arguments that persuade the ideological will persuade the non ideological is political folly.

To rule an ideology must persuade the center using appeals that are attractive to the non ideological center.


786 posted on 08/07/2003 11:32:45 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Coming from one of them "principled conservatives" any reference to "groupthink" is truly gut-busting.
787 posted on 08/07/2003 11:41:47 AM PDT by Deb (My Tag Skies to Gotham & Con-Fabs With Net Prexies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: DeSoto
RE: #735

You make an interesting point. I was watching C-SPAN2 over the weekend and the son of Julius & Ethel Rosenberg was hawking his new book to a tiny group of aged & addled Birkenstock customers. (He is obviously a product of his parents since he heads a "progressive" non-profit org. that funnels contributions to the victimized children of leftist activists. In other words...he's a commie too.)

He ended his talk by making the point that must be the unofficial motto of the Communist party operating in America and that is...take what you can get. Don't be discouraged by people's lack of purity on your issues. Know that you will be disappointed. Expect it. Don't expect purity. Take a crumb if that's all you can get. Learn from your mistakes. Withdraw. And come back stronger another day.

Interestingly, Hillary made the exact same point when she trashed the Bush judicial nominees last week.

This philosophy makes the Left almost unbeatable because our side is sometimes newly converted and fragile, and so gung-ho and motivated that they can be devastated by a single set-back.

That you understand the politics of taking what's possible, is a huge credit ot you. I just hope more people on our side can hang in long enough to evolve like you did. It's really our only hope.

788 posted on 08/07/2003 12:09:20 PM PDT by Deb (My Tag Skies to Gotham & Con-Fabs With Net Prexies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: Registered
I can't be contrained by convention. The tragedy of losing my green sweater has left me bereft and refractory.
789 posted on 08/07/2003 12:14:57 PM PDT by Deb (My Tag Skies to Gotham & Con-Fabs With Net Prexies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Like other surgeries...

These procedures should be broadcast by pro lifers on TV for all to see. A picture is worth a thousand words, a video worth 1000 pictures.

No one can complain, because it is legal...just like other procedures shown on cable 24/7.

i am so sickened by this that I no longer have an ethical problem with stopping this BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. Any, as long as the job gets done.

What the hell is wrong with us?
790 posted on 08/07/2003 12:21:13 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals ("they took 2 steps to the left, I took 3 steps to the right")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Like other surgeries...

These procedures should be broadcast by pro lifers on TV for all to see. A picture is worth a thousand words, a video worth 1000 pictures.

No one can complain, because it is legal...just like other procedures shown on cable 24/7.

i am so sickened by this that I no longer have an ethical problem with stopping this BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. Any, as long as the job gets done.

What the hell is wrong with us?
791 posted on 08/07/2003 12:21:22 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals ("they took 2 steps to the left, I took 3 steps to the right")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I hope, however, that in the future you might contemplate your reaction here a bit, and reconsider some of the rhetorical excess.

In reference to my rhetorical excess, that's just how I like to write.

I speak that way, too.

I'm passionate. I used to be irascible. I've been reborn but I'm still growing. (:

I have some concerns about it you don't share.

Your anxiety is unsubstantiated. Your continuously posted concerns appear to me to be either irrational weakness or purposeful subterfuge. I love and respect you; your behavior on this thread makes no sense to me. Every question you have posed about the language and possible loopholes of this legislation has been invalidated. The answers you have received have not been insubstantial opinion but established fact, direct quotes, verifiable truth: they have made no difference to you.

I have known you to be very actively pro-life. This is the first piece of pro-life legislation we have seen brought through the US Congress that will actually be signed by the President. It outlaws partial birth abortion. With no basis in logic whatsoever you are actively against it.

That was the cause of my reaction.

792 posted on 08/07/2003 12:29:18 PM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
With no basis in logic whatsoever you are actively against it.

I can only guess that you've confused someone else's post with mine. I have questions about the legislation, but I've nowhere suggested that I'm against it.

Let me give you my take in a nutshell... I think a slugfest for more strongly-worded PBA legislation would have been preferrable, and winnable. However, given the circumstances we currently have, I'll take the bill as written. I'm simply trying to get a handle on what it actually does. I understand you have a strong opinion on that, and that's fine. You may even be right, but I'm still going to ask more questions and wait and see how things shake out, ok?


793 posted on 08/07/2003 12:37:38 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Dump Davis - Vote McClintock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain; Sabertooth
"That you're a blustering liar and a fraud?"

"These cowards have no morals. They have no shame about lying."

************************

"It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The psychosis appears to be in advanced stages."

"We are in control. They are in a state of hysteria. Losers, they think that by killing civilians and trying to distort the feelings of the people they will win. I think they will not win, those bastards."

Whenever you kids decide to revamp the stale talking points, there's a plethora to choose from HERE.

794 posted on 08/07/2003 12:58:23 PM PDT by William Wallace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: William Wallace
That's all you have? Yawwwwwwwwwn. I was hoping for so much more.
795 posted on 08/07/2003 1:00:25 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (Welcome to my bozo filter, fatboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
What you are doing is not okay with me. It is despicable. I am not the King in FReeperdom. But I am a FReeper, and I can out you. For instance:

when it's genuine

a lipstick job

what's really incremental retreat

buy into

trap

You have been spreading lies throughout this thread by couching them in terms you hope will convince others you are sincerely 'questioning.'

there are times when it's best to get into a slugfest, with the full determination to win, and crush our opponents

You sure have been slugging away here.

Their are many arts in political war.

It's pretty obvious to me now what you are doing. I hope it is equally obvious to others who have been following this thread. I'm saddened by it, because I never would have thought Sabertooth capable of sinking so low.

796 posted on 08/07/2003 1:03:47 PM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine; William Wallace
.30, these people don't understand what Bush is doing re: PBA. They only read the "abortion" part and with that, stampede to the door to trash President Bush.
797 posted on 08/07/2003 1:06:05 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
I am taking a deep breath and counting to 10. Thank you for your post to me!
798 posted on 08/07/2003 1:11:01 PM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
I was hoping for so much more.

And you've made it this far with so much less.

799 posted on 08/07/2003 1:16:16 PM PDT by William Wallace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
I am a FReeper, and I can out you. For instance:

when it's genuine
a lipstick job
what's really incremental retreat
buy into
trap

You have been spreading lies throughout this thread by couching them in terms you hope will convince others you are sincerely 'questioning.'

I was speaking in general terms about political strategy, in what I believe to be the out-of-context snippets from posts that you didn't reference.

If you think you've got something on which to out me, by all means, do so. However, I gently suggest that you're wasting your time, looking for more disagreement between you and me than there actually is here.

Let me explain a small part of my dilemma when I sift a story to the best of my ability...

I've gotten to the point that when I hear "incremental," it's meaningless. For example, when I was told the new prescription drug entitlement was an incremental step toward smaller government, "incremental" was meaningless, because the prescription drug entitlement actually makes the government bigger.

Unfortunately, when I now read "incremental," it has no immediate value to me, until I'm certain it actually means what it's supposed to mean, in the instance in which it's been used.

It's pretty obvious to me now what you are doing. I hope it is equally obvious to others who have been following this thread. I'm saddened by it, because I never would have thought Sabertooth capable of sinking so low.

Since you've been following this thread, kindly refer me to what you believe are my low points, and explain how they are so.


800 posted on 08/07/2003 1:23:54 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Dump Davis - Vote McClintock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 921-940 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson