For all the Dem Bashers!

[Ash Wednesday]

Bush is stupid. Let him be held accountable. What's there left to say? Does whether or not he or even John Kerry support the bill even immediately relevant in the success of this bill? I may be mistaken, but if this goes up the federal court food chain and eventually to the SCOTUS, neither Bush nor Kerry would even have a say in the matter.

At this point I am having a hard time viewing the point of this thread as being anything but opportunistic partisan propaganda and political spin thinly veiled by a "hooray for life!" facade. I apologize if I'm being rude and ignorant. I guess that's just how I see it. No hard feelings. But there hasn't even been any word of what Bartling's religious affiliation is. Is that somehow less important than what political party she belongs to?

No doubt, the Democratic Party in general is roundly criticized on this board. But there are plenty of reasons why that is, given many Dems track records on moral issues. I don't think anyone on here is stupid enough to believe that ALL Democrats are evil, at least I hope that's not the case that people would think such. What people should be criticizing is not their party affiliation but their stances on morals. While I questioned where praises for the GOP were on their fight against abortion, upon further reflection, I think it's a good thing that there hasn't really any threads about that sort of thing. Because in the end, it really shouldn't be politicized.

Good lord, I feel like we're back in 2004. *throbbing head*

[Jaime]

Of course the intent of this thread is about her political party and not her religious beliefs. For one, they aren't publicly known. And the other reason isn't to say "Yay the democrats are better" It is to say "All right!! The democrats are making positive changes!!"

I don't know why some are reading this thread as a bash on republicans. I've said nothing bad about them. ALL I"VE SAID is that a significant piece of legislation is being spearheaded by a democrat. How is that not a positive sign of things changing? How is this not a cause for celebration???

Is it a rule on this board that we can only celebrate when republicans do the right thing?

[Ash Wednesday]

No such rule -- but you were right when you stated that there really haven't been any threads tooting horns about Republicans.

I'm sorry if some of us have taken your thread the wrong way -- I really don't mean to be such a pill. But it came across to me as a display of "in your face" gloating to all those "Dem bashers" because the woman happened to be a Democrat, rather than a joyful cause for celebration. I could be totally wrong about that. But that's how it seemed to read to me, and is perhaps the reason why people jumped all over it. But in the context of it, it seems to read "I'm going to show those Dem bashers, because I'm sick of the Democratic party being bashed all the time!" That seemed to me to overshadow any intended celebratory element -- abortion being such a crucial issue and all, it struck me as gloating at an inappropriate time -- it's easy for people to get heated over this issue, obviously. Sorry if I've misunderstood, I probably should have clarified my interpretations earlier on.

If it was celebrating or even ribbing "Dem bashers" over a Democrat spearheading a landmark farm subsidies bill giving dairy cows health insurance or some other smaller issue, I probably wouldn't even be making an issue of it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Mar 1 2006, 09:47 PM']Bush is stupid. Let him be held accountable. What's there left to say? Does whether or not he or even John Kerry support the bill even immediately relevant in the success of this bill? I may be mistaken, but if this goes up the federal court food chain and eventually to the SCOTUS, neither Bush nor Kerry would even have a say in the matter.

At this point I am having a hard time viewing the point of this thread as being anything but opportunistic partisan propaganda and political spin thinly veiled by a "hooray for life!" facade. I apologize if I'm being rude and ignorant. I guess that's just how I see it. No hard feelings. But there hasn't even been any word of what Bartling's religious affiliation is. Is that somehow less important than what political party she belongs to?

No doubt, the Democratic Party in general is roundly criticized on this board. But there are plenty of reasons why that is, given many Dems track records on moral issues. I don't think anyone on here is stupid enough to believe that ALL Democrats are evil, at least I hope that's not the case that people would think such. What people should be criticizing is not their party affiliation but their stances on morals. While I questioned where praises for the GOP were on their fight against abortion, upon further reflection, I think it's a good thing that there hasn't really any threads about that sort of thing. Because in the end, it really shouldn't be politicized.

Good lord, I feel like we're back in 2004. *throbbing head*
[right][snapback]901245[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Amen, amen, and amen!

Time to let this silly thread die.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 2 2006, 06:02 PM']Amen, amen, and amen!

Time to let this silly thread die.
[right][snapback]901825[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


There is nothing silly about this thread. The actions of Sen Bartling are admirable . Bush's lack of support is not.


You don't like it? Don't post

Edited March 3, 2006 by jaime

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Mar 2 2006, 06:07 PM']There is nothing silly about this thread.  The actions of Sen Bartling are admirable .  Bush's lack of support is not. 
You don't like it?  Don't post
[right][snapback]901873[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
For Pete's sake! I think Bush may be ignorant of the true nature of the beast, but you have to admit that if all politicians had his views on abortion we would be in a much better position than we are right now!

I *DO* admire the rebels in the democratic party who support the Culture of Life, but it's silly to make statements like "the more pro-life democrats there are, the better." if we were to double the number of pro-life democrats and halve the number of pro-life republicans, the pro-life movement would suffer devestating losses. I would *LOVE* for every democrat to be pro-life, but if the cost of getting a hold on the democratic party is to lose our hold on the republicans, we can't affor it.

*rolls eyes* why do we *care* what party she's in? she's pro-life in a very conservative state. That's not unusual.






































sorry, i'll try not to get annoyed at this sort of insipid partisanship in the future.

[Jaime]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Mar 6 2006, 01:37 AM']For Pete's sake!  I think Bush may be ignorant of the true nature of the beast, but you have to admit that if all politicians had his views on abortion we would be in a much better position than we are right now!

I *DO* admire the rebels in the democratic party who support the Culture of Life, but it's silly to make statements like "the more pro-life democrats there are, the better."  if we were to double the number of pro-life democrats and halve the number of pro-life republicans, the pro-life movement would suffer devestating losses.  I would *LOVE* for every democrat to be pro-life, but if the cost of getting a hold on the democratic party is to lose our hold on the republicans, we can't affor it.

*rolls eyes*  why do we *care* what party she's in?  she's pro-life in a very conservative state.  That's not unusual.
sorry, i'll try not to get annoyed at this sort of insipid partisanship in the future.
[right][snapback]903951[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Why in the world do you think that its a silly statement to say "the more pro-life democrats there are, the better"? If both parties are pro-life, then game over, we win.

Of course we're much better off with more pro-life democrats! This isn't partisanship,

its Catholicism

[Socrates]

(For all you GOP bashers)

From MSNBC:
[quote][b]South Dakota governor signs abortion ban[/b]

Nearly all operations outlawed in direct challenge to Roe v. Wade

PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman’s life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the state’s only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.[/quote]







btw He's a Republican!!!

[Jaime]

And congratulations Gov Rounds.

If you want to email your congratulations send it [url="http://www.state.sd.us/governor/"]here[/url]



See Soc it helps to give a contact.

[Socrates]

Thanks for the contact, hot stuff.

[Jaime]

You must be glad that this silly thread didn't die after all

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Mar 6 2006, 05:08 PM']Why in the world do you think that its a silly statement to say "the more pro-life democrats there are, the better"?  If both parties are pro-life, then game over, we win. 
[right][snapback]904536[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Because it ignores the rest of reality, more specifically, where most of the pro-lifers are. read my post. the whole thing. i explained the situation already.

[Ash Wednesday]

hot stuff, may I also have a hamburger with Tillamook coagulated milk on it?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Mar 7 2006, 01:47 AM']Because it ignores the rest of reality, more specifically, where most of the pro-lifers are.  read my post.  the whole thing.  i explained the situation already.
[right][snapback]905092[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But you're assuming that a rise in the number of pro-life Democrats would mean necessarily mean a decrease in the number of pro-life Republicans, which makes no sense.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 7 2006, 07:32 AM']But you're assuming that a rise in the number of pro-life Democrats would mean necessarily mean a decrease in the number of pro-life Republicans, which makes no sense.
[right][snapback]905145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


What she said.

[Ash Wednesday]

(Never mind. Back to you Bob...) Edited March 7, 2006 by Ash Wednesday

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Mar 6 2006, 06:19 PM']You must be glad that this silly thread didn't die after all
[right][snapback]904681[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, I think I did demonstrate how it is silly to use this news as an opportunity for partisan cheerleading.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 7 2006, 06:32 AM']But you're assuming that a rise in the number of pro-life Democrats would mean necessarily mean a decrease in the number of pro-life Republicans, which makes no sense.
[right][snapback]905145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think he figured (perhaps erroneously) that people here were encouraging pro-lifers to switch to the Democratic Party.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 7 2006, 08:33 PM']I think he figured (perhaps erroneously) that people here were encouraging pro-lifers to switch to the Democratic Party.
[right][snapback]905859[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Which is not the case (at least as I read it)

I also don't see it as partisan cheerleading.

Rather, I see it as a celebration of finding definite signs of life in an area many people have written off as being dead.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 7 2006, 06:32 AM']But you're assuming that a rise in the number of pro-life Democrats would mean necessarily mean a decrease in the number of pro-life Republicans, which makes no sense.
[right][snapback]905145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
nope, you've got that backwards, i made no assumptions. This was my point exactly, for the statement "It's always good to add Dem Pro-lifers" to be true, adding Dem pro-lifers must never have any costs that are more serious than the benefit of adding a Dem pro-lifer. That is the assumption that i was faulting in the earlier statement.

I tried (and apparently failed) to show that if you took pro-lifers from another source to get them in the Dem party, it could be detrimental to the pro-life cause. (Granted, i didn't use a good analogy. I thought it would be reasonably self-explanatory.)

Here's a better one:
Imagine a district with 11 republicans 6 of whom are pro-life, 5 who don't care about abortion and would thus choose a pro-abort; and 8 dems, all of whom are pro-abort. Let's have an election:
Results:
Primary:
Republicans get a pro-life candidate
Dems get a pro-abort candidate
Election:
Republican pro-lifer wins.

Now, lets have two of the pro-lifers migrate to the dem party.
Results:
Primary:
GOP runs a pro-abort candidate
Dems run a pro-abort candidate
Election:
We don't really care because everyone was pro-abort! (although in this case, the dems will win)

Hopefully that cleared things up. It's *NOT* always a good thing to have more pro-life *DEMOCRATS.* It *IS* always good to have moreof a given population pro-life.