Earl Appleby has some words for Vice President Dick Cheney, who undercut President Bush’s stated policy on same-sex unions. I don’t understand why Cheney would do such a thing. When you’re the second man on the ticket, your job is to stand behind the top guy and support everything he says, not to undercut, especially when doing so undercuts your base. Unless, of course, it’s a clever ploy to shore up support among the minority bits of your party, like the Log Cabin Republicans.
Unfortunately, what we’re seeing is the Republicans once again taking their base for granted. Every single primetime speaker at this week’s Republican convention is a liberal on social matters. Every single one is pro-abortion, for instance. And while the party platform remains mainly conservative, there was a major fight at the platform meetings to make sure it stayed conservative.
It’s funny that many Democrats complain that their party is drifting to the right, while many Republicans complain that the GOP is drifting to left. Pretty soon, there won’t be much left to distinguish the two. So there may come a time very soon when we ask why should anyone vote for either one when there isn’t a dime’s difference between them. That time hasn’t come yet, but the writing’s on the wall.
Isn’t Zell Miller pro-life?
Amazing thing here is that if there was a pro-Life, pro-Traditional marriage Democrat running, he would most likelyy smoke Bush. There are many who vote Republican ONLY because of the life stance.
Amazing thing here is that if there was a pro-Life, pro-Traditional marriage Democrat running, he would most likelyy smoke Bush. There are many who vote Republican ONLY because of the life stance.
Amazing thing here is that if there was a pro-Life, pro-Traditional marriage Democrat running, he would most likelyy smoke Bush. There are many who vote Republican ONLY because of the life stance.
“I don’t understand why Cheney would do such a thing.”
Maybe because his daughter is a lesbian. Whether he truly feels this way or whether he is only pandering to the middle-of-the-road, he is probably the most credible person in the administration to say such a thing, for the reason above. But I was disappointed he said what he did too.
“I don’t understand why Cheney would do such a thing.”
Maybe because his daughter is a lesbian. Whether he truly feels this way or whether he is only pandering to the middle-of-the-road, he is probably the most credible person in the administration to say such a thing, for the reason above. But I was disappointed he said what he did too.
“I don’t understand why Cheney would do such a thing.”
Maybe because his daughter is a lesbian. Whether he truly feels this way or whether he is only pandering to the middle-of-the-road, he is probably the most credible person in the administration to say such a thing, for the reason above. But I was disappointed he said what he did too.
There are many who vote Republican ONLY because of the life stance.
I know you didn’t mean it this way, Joe, but statements like this amaze me. Have we become so jaded to infanticide that “the life stance” is relegated to an “ONLY”?
That said: if we’re talking about the presidential election, and people are voting for Bush (don’t count on it, by the way) ONLY because of his pro-life stance, than these people indeed deserve the nom “stupid.”
I mean, what’s the alternative? Kerry, because of his unyielding and clear stance on the issues? Or hey, how about Nader? (Actually, I’m shamelessly encouraging Democrats to vote for Nader but don’t tell anybody. <g>)
There are many who vote Republican ONLY because of the life stance.
I know you didn’t mean it this way, Joe, but statements like this amaze me. Have we become so jaded to infanticide that “the life stance” is relegated to an “ONLY”?
That said: if we’re talking about the presidential election, and people are voting for Bush (don’t count on it, by the way) ONLY because of his pro-life stance, than these people indeed deserve the nom “stupid.”
I mean, what’s the alternative? Kerry, because of his unyielding and clear stance on the issues? Or hey, how about Nader? (Actually, I’m shamelessly encouraging Democrats to vote for Nader but don’t tell anybody. <g>)
There are many who vote Republican ONLY because of the life stance.
I know you didn’t mean it this way, Joe, but statements like this amaze me. Have we become so jaded to infanticide that “the life stance” is relegated to an “ONLY”?
That said: if we’re talking about the presidential election, and people are voting for Bush (don’t count on it, by the way) ONLY because of his pro-life stance, than these people indeed deserve the nom “stupid.”
I mean, what’s the alternative? Kerry, because of his unyielding and clear stance on the issues? Or hey, how about Nader? (Actually, I’m shamelessly encouraging Democrats to vote for Nader but don’t tell anybody. <g>)
Zell Miller is pro-life now but was not always.
He says, “I believe the thinking of many Americans is changing on this subject. New science and technology can now show the heart of the unborn baby beating in the mother’s womb. I saw it on the front page of Newsweek, no less. I remember my grandson, only twenty, carrying a sonogram around to show off his yet unborn, but so alive daughter. It gave new meaning to the old Roberta Flack song ‘The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face.’
“I know it is wrong to take these lives. For me it is no longer a political issue but a moral one, as it should have been from the beginning. I hope someday Roe v. Wade will be reversed.”
John McCain’s position is…to have many, many positions. Not only has he spoken in favor—and against—overturning Roe v. Wade, he has been all over the place verbally on all sorts of abortion-related issues, like Partial Birth Abortion and abortion on military bases.
Even more baffling his voting record is also all over the place. He voted against outlawing Partial Birth abortions but he also voted against permitting abortions on military bases.
Maybe someone else can distill a coherent McCain position, or just decide what the preponderance of the evidence indicates, but I can’t.
Doug Johnson considers him a threat to the Pro-Life movement.
For a look at where McCain has stood and stood and stood and stood, see:
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm
Zell Miller is pro-life now but was not always.
He says, “I believe the thinking of many Americans is changing on this subject. New science and technology can now show the heart of the unborn baby beating in the mother’s womb. I saw it on the front page of Newsweek, no less. I remember my grandson, only twenty, carrying a sonogram around to show off his yet unborn, but so alive daughter. It gave new meaning to the old Roberta Flack song ‘The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face.’
“I know it is wrong to take these lives. For me it is no longer a political issue but a moral one, as it should have been from the beginning. I hope someday Roe v. Wade will be reversed.”
John McCain’s position is…to have many, many positions. Not only has he spoken in favor—and against—overturning Roe v. Wade, he has been all over the place verbally on all sorts of abortion-related issues, like Partial Birth Abortion and abortion on military bases.
Even more baffling his voting record is also all over the place. He voted against outlawing Partial Birth abortions but he also voted against permitting abortions on military bases.
Maybe someone else can distill a coherent McCain position, or just decide what the preponderance of the evidence indicates, but I can’t.
Doug Johnson considers him a threat to the Pro-Life movement.
For a look at where McCain has stood and stood and stood and stood, see:
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm
Zell Miller is pro-life now but was not always.
He says, “I believe the thinking of many Americans is changing on this subject. New science and technology can now show the heart of the unborn baby beating in the mother’s womb. I saw it on the front page of Newsweek, no less. I remember my grandson, only twenty, carrying a sonogram around to show off his yet unborn, but so alive daughter. It gave new meaning to the old Roberta Flack song ‘The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face.’
“I know it is wrong to take these lives. For me it is no longer a political issue but a moral one, as it should have been from the beginning. I hope someday Roe v. Wade will be reversed.”
John McCain’s position is…to have many, many positions. Not only has he spoken in favor—and against—overturning Roe v. Wade, he has been all over the place verbally on all sorts of abortion-related issues, like Partial Birth Abortion and abortion on military bases.
Even more baffling his voting record is also all over the place. He voted against outlawing Partial Birth abortions but he also voted against permitting abortions on military bases.
Maybe someone else can distill a coherent McCain position, or just decide what the preponderance of the evidence indicates, but I can’t.
Doug Johnson considers him a threat to the Pro-Life movement.
For a look at where McCain has stood and stood and stood and stood, see:
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm
Kelly: Would SOLELY be a better term?
Kelly: Would SOLELY be a better term?
Kelly: Would SOLELY be a better term?
Note… I said, if there was a pro-Life, pro-Traditional marriage Democrat running… I don’t think there is…
Note… I said, if there was a pro-Life, pro-Traditional marriage Democrat running… I don’t think there is…
Note… I said, if there was a pro-Life, pro-Traditional marriage Democrat running… I don’t think there is…
Joe wonders:
Kelly: Would SOLELY be a better term?
I don’t think so, Joe o’ Mine. It means the same as “only” in this context.
My point is two-fold: (love using phrases like “two-fold”)
The “pro-life” reason is more than an “only” (or a “solely.”) It’s a BIGGIE!
And,
There are more reasons to vote for Bush than his pro-life stance. Even though that’s the most important one.
Kelly <—————reporting for duty!
Joe wonders:
Kelly: Would SOLELY be a better term?
I don’t think so, Joe o’ Mine. It means the same as “only” in this context.
My point is two-fold: (love using phrases like “two-fold”)
The “pro-life” reason is more than an “only” (or a “solely.”) It’s a BIGGIE!
And,
There are more reasons to vote for Bush than his pro-life stance. Even though that’s the most important one.
Kelly <—————reporting for duty!
Joe wonders:
Kelly: Would SOLELY be a better term?
I don’t think so, Joe o’ Mine. It means the same as “only” in this context.
My point is two-fold: (love using phrases like “two-fold”)
The “pro-life” reason is more than an “only” (or a “solely.”) It’s a BIGGIE!
And,
There are more reasons to vote for Bush than his pro-life stance. Even though that’s the most important one.
Kelly <—————reporting for duty!
I love it when you speak Irish to me!
I love it when you speak Irish to me!
I love it when you speak Irish to me!
Whoa Whoa Whoa!
My hero Kelly Clark just called me stupid? Say it ain’t so!
Yes Kelly. One and only reason I hope that Bush wins again is the pro life issue. You’re right that its a biggie. Big enough to live with the fact that I don’t trust his leadership here or abroad.
Granted I’m no fan of Kerry either. But yes I will say it again. The ONLY and SOLE reason I hope Bush gets reelected is to get some better justices in house. That’s it.
It drives me crazy that other issues have to take a back seat. That this is a one issue election for me. There are so many other things I’d like to be thinking about. But with a million plus abortions every year, all the other issues just pale.
Call me stoopid if you want. But my heart’s in the right place
Jaime
Whoa Whoa Whoa!
My hero Kelly Clark just called me stupid? Say it ain’t so!
Yes Kelly. One and only reason I hope that Bush wins again is the pro life issue. You’re right that its a biggie. Big enough to live with the fact that I don’t trust his leadership here or abroad.
Granted I’m no fan of Kerry either. But yes I will say it again. The ONLY and SOLE reason I hope Bush gets reelected is to get some better justices in house. That’s it.
It drives me crazy that other issues have to take a back seat. That this is a one issue election for me. There are so many other things I’d like to be thinking about. But with a million plus abortions every year, all the other issues just pale.
Call me stoopid if you want. But my heart’s in the right place
Jaime
Whoa Whoa Whoa!
My hero Kelly Clark just called me stupid? Say it ain’t so!
Yes Kelly. One and only reason I hope that Bush wins again is the pro life issue. You’re right that its a biggie. Big enough to live with the fact that I don’t trust his leadership here or abroad.
Granted I’m no fan of Kerry either. But yes I will say it again. The ONLY and SOLE reason I hope Bush gets reelected is to get some better justices in house. That’s it.
It drives me crazy that other issues have to take a back seat. That this is a one issue election for me. There are so many other things I’d like to be thinking about. But with a million plus abortions every year, all the other issues just pale.
Call me stoopid if you want. But my heart’s in the right place
Jaime
Hey Kelly,
Could you let us stupid people know how you use italics?
Peace, Joe
Hey Kelly,
Could you let us stupid people know how you use italics?
Peace, Joe
Hey Kelly,
Could you let us stupid people know how you use italics?
Peace, Joe
The “inclusive” party will capture the middle third of the electorate that is in play. That is why the Democrats made such a big deal about warrior Kerry and his band of brothers. That is why the Republicans have showcased pro-abortion politicians who are not in-your-face pro-abortion but have a positive record of achievement of some kind.
Remember that a pro-death Republican senator is unlikely to fillibuster Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court.
The problem is not that the Republicans are ambiguous on pro-life issues, it is that Catholics are ambiguous on pro-life issues. R vs W would have been overturned long ago if the bishops had been serious about it. The truth is that they are more interested in immigration policy, farm subsidies, the minimum wage, public housing, gun control and other peripheral issues.
The “inclusive” party will capture the middle third of the electorate that is in play. That is why the Democrats made such a big deal about warrior Kerry and his band of brothers. That is why the Republicans have showcased pro-abortion politicians who are not in-your-face pro-abortion but have a positive record of achievement of some kind.
Remember that a pro-death Republican senator is unlikely to fillibuster Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court.
The problem is not that the Republicans are ambiguous on pro-life issues, it is that Catholics are ambiguous on pro-life issues. R vs W would have been overturned long ago if the bishops had been serious about it. The truth is that they are more interested in immigration policy, farm subsidies, the minimum wage, public housing, gun control and other peripheral issues.
The “inclusive” party will capture the middle third of the electorate that is in play. That is why the Democrats made such a big deal about warrior Kerry and his band of brothers. That is why the Republicans have showcased pro-abortion politicians who are not in-your-face pro-abortion but have a positive record of achievement of some kind.
Remember that a pro-death Republican senator is unlikely to fillibuster Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court.
The problem is not that the Republicans are ambiguous on pro-life issues, it is that Catholics are ambiguous on pro-life issues. R vs W would have been overturned long ago if the bishops had been serious about it. The truth is that they are more interested in immigration policy, farm subsidies, the minimum wage, public housing, gun control and other peripheral issues.
Joe and Jaime, me lads,
Forgive me for calling you “stupid.” It’s just that I think there are other reasons for voting for Bush besides the obvious one. And I really wouldn’t have called you “stupid” except that since the Republican Party is know ‘round these parts as “The Stupid Party.” As opposed to the Dems who are called “The Evil Party” and I believe you can thank Mark Shea for both noms de plume—switching to French, here.
Moving on to Italian, or, “italics”—first, I’m not exactly the one to ask about formatting. Often my posts, especially on this blog, are utter disasters. (And I’m talking about formatting here, those o’ you in the Peanut Gallery!)
With that disclaimer:
To italicize a letter or a word, start with the “less than” (<) sign on your keybord. Next, enter a small “i” without the quotes. Next, enter the “greater than” (>) sign. Now, enter the stuff you want italicized. When you’re done, “turn off” the italics. Do this by simply doing the same thing you did to begin with EXCEPT add a forward slash (/) before the small “i” without the quotes.
If the above doesn’t work, do what I do…simply blame the software, the weather, your computer, or any other Forces Beyond Your Control.
Joe and Jaime, me lads,
Forgive me for calling you “stupid.” It’s just that I think there are other reasons for voting for Bush besides the obvious one. And I really wouldn’t have called you “stupid” except that since the Republican Party is know ‘round these parts as “The Stupid Party.” As opposed to the Dems who are called “The Evil Party” and I believe you can thank Mark Shea for both noms de plume—switching to French, here.
Moving on to Italian, or, “italics”—first, I’m not exactly the one to ask about formatting. Often my posts, especially on this blog, are utter disasters. (And I’m talking about formatting here, those o’ you in the Peanut Gallery!)
With that disclaimer:
To italicize a letter or a word, start with the “less than” (<) sign on your keybord. Next, enter a small “i” without the quotes. Next, enter the “greater than” (>) sign. Now, enter the stuff you want italicized. When you’re done, “turn off” the italics. Do this by simply doing the same thing you did to begin with EXCEPT add a forward slash (/) before the small “i” without the quotes.
If the above doesn’t work, do what I do…simply blame the software, the weather, your computer, or any other Forces Beyond Your Control.
Joe and Jaime, me lads,
Forgive me for calling you “stupid.” It’s just that I think there are other reasons for voting for Bush besides the obvious one. And I really wouldn’t have called you “stupid” except that since the Republican Party is know ‘round these parts as “The Stupid Party.” As opposed to the Dems who are called “The Evil Party” and I believe you can thank Mark Shea for both noms de plume—switching to French, here.
Moving on to Italian, or, “italics”—first, I’m not exactly the one to ask about formatting. Often my posts, especially on this blog, are utter disasters. (And I’m talking about formatting here, those o’ you in the Peanut Gallery!)
With that disclaimer:
To italicize a letter or a word, start with the “less than” (<) sign on your keybord. Next, enter a small “i” without the quotes. Next, enter the “greater than” (>) sign. Now, enter the stuff you want italicized. When you’re done, “turn off” the italics. Do this by simply doing the same thing you did to begin with EXCEPT add a forward slash (/) before the small “i” without the quotes.
If the above doesn’t work, do what I do…simply blame the software, the weather, your computer, or any other Forces Beyond Your Control.
So it works like this?
So it works like this?
So it works like this?
Mille Grazia, Bellissimma!
I switched to Itilian, also.
Interested to see if my attempt to bold worked.
Mille Grazia, Bellissimma!
I switched to Itilian, also.
Interested to see if my attempt to bold worked.
Mille Grazia, Bellissimma!
I switched to Itilian, also.
Interested to see if my attempt to bold worked.
How do you bold something?
How do you bold something?
How do you bold something?
and underlining using a u
To bold substitute a “b” for the “i” (sans italics). **Kelly, “sans” was French.
If my note above comes out underlined, then do the same using a “u”.
Wunderbar!!!
“German”
and underlining using a u
To bold substitute a “b” for the “i” (sans italics). **Kelly, “sans” was French.
If my note above comes out underlined, then do the same using a “u”.
Wunderbar!!!
“German”
and underlining using a u
To bold substitute a “b” for the “i” (sans italics). **Kelly, “sans” was French.
If my note above comes out underlined, then do the same using a “u”.
Wunderbar!!!
“German”
To do mutliple effects, e.g., bold and italics, I’ll assume you merely place those additional letters between the cornered brackets.
To do mutliple effects, e.g., bold and italics, I’ll assume you merely place those additional letters between the cornered brackets.
To do mutliple effects, e.g., bold and italics, I’ll assume you merely place those additional letters between the cornered brackets.
I used a separate set of cornered brackets for each.
I used a separate set of cornered brackets for each.
I used a separate set of cornered brackets for each.
Kelly, I’d be interested in your opinion of my most recent posting in Discussion Forum.
Kelly, I’d be interested in your opinion of my most recent posting in Discussion Forum.
Kelly, I’d be interested in your opinion of my most recent posting in Discussion Forum.
No apology necessary darlin. Most people outside (and probably inside) blogging consider me to be rather “dim”.
Although if you have other really good reasons to vote for Bush, I’d like to hear them. As a formal protest, I am voting for the true prolife candidate…
Camilam for President
No apology necessary darlin. Most people outside (and probably inside) blogging consider me to be rather “dim”.
Although if you have other really good reasons to vote for Bush, I’d like to hear them. As a formal protest, I am voting for the true prolife candidate…
Camilam for President
No apology necessary darlin. Most people outside (and probably inside) blogging consider me to be rather “dim”.
Although if you have other really good reasons to vote for Bush, I’d like to hear them. As a formal protest, I am voting for the true prolife candidate…
Camilam for President
sans bold
sans bold
sans bold
sans bold
sans bold
sans bold
sans bold
sans bold
sans bold
A good reason to vote for George W. Bush is that it’s nothing you’ve got to apologize for, as in “well, the lesser of two evils,” etc.
George W. Bush is not evil. He is an honorable man. A good man. I’m looking forward to voting for a decent human being.
I’m looking forward to voting for Bush even more so then last time. (‘Course, being in Massachusetts, my vote might not make much of a dent, but all the same.)
I remember 9/11. I remember Bush saying and I quote: “this is going to be a long, long war.” Sometimes I think I’m the only one who remembers that. “I’m a patient man,” said the CIC. I’d like to think I’m a patient woman.
I remember former Iraqi government “policies”: the horrendous treatment of women, for example. The torture and death of those who dared to dissent from this guy Hussein’s commandments. Plastic shredders. Yikes. To put it mildly.
Soon after 9/11—very soon, sadly—many in this country went from flag waving to Bush-bashing. Not surprising. Disappointing, perhaps. But not all that daunting. Some people apparently thing throwing folks feet-first into plastic shredders isn’t terrorism at all. I’m not one of these people.
I’m pro-life.
I support the war on terror—AND the action in Iraq. I support President Bush and find the notion of a Kerry presidency not only appalling but terrifying. Why? Because I’m PRO-LIFE!
Repeat: I support the war on terror and the action in Iraq. I support people who want to govern themselves. While I pray for Hussein, I believe he WAS a weapon of mass destruction. I’m gratified—not satisfied, but gratified—in what has already been changed in Iraq, for example.
Not convinced? Let’s look at those who don’t like Bush.
From last Sunday’s Washington Times:
“Tens of thousands of protesters are expected to descend upon New York to harass Republicans and steal the limelight from the president.
“Among the groups sending contingents are some that have been protesting Mr. Bush’s policies and presidency from the start: the AIDS activist group ACT UP; feminists Code Pink, the National Organization for Women and NARAL firm believer in the separation between church and state, abortion should remain legal.
That being said, the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church for condemning Catholic pro-choice politicians (i.e. John Kerry), despite the institution’s own grievous failure in protecting children from pedophilia is infuriating. What I find more offensive are reports alleging that the staunchly pro-life President Bush paid for an illegal abortion in 1970 of a 15 year-old girlfriend he impregnated. What this election should be about is each man’s actions and not the rhetoric that comes out of his mouth.
A good reason to vote for George W. Bush is that it’s nothing you’ve got to apologize for, as in “well, the lesser of two evils,” etc.
George W. Bush is not evil. He is an honorable man. A good man. I’m looking forward to voting for a decent human being.
I’m looking forward to voting for Bush even more so then last time. (‘Course, being in Massachusetts, my vote might not make much of a dent, but all the same.)
I remember 9/11. I remember Bush saying and I quote: “this is going to be a long, long war.” Sometimes I think I’m the only one who remembers that. “I’m a patient man,” said the CIC. I’d like to think I’m a patient woman.
I remember former Iraqi government “policies”: the horrendous treatment of women, for example. The torture and death of those who dared to dissent from this guy Hussein’s commandments. Plastic shredders. Yikes. To put it mildly.
Soon after 9/11—very soon, sadly—many in this country went from flag waving to Bush-bashing. Not surprising. Disappointing, perhaps. But not all that daunting. Some people apparently thing throwing folks feet-first into plastic shredders isn’t terrorism at all. I’m not one of these people.
I’m pro-life.
I support the war on terror—AND the action in Iraq. I support President Bush and find the notion of a Kerry presidency not only appalling but terrifying. Why? Because I’m PRO-LIFE!
Repeat: I support the war on terror and the action in Iraq. I support people who want to govern themselves. While I pray for Hussein, I believe he WAS a weapon of mass destruction. I’m gratified—not satisfied, but gratified—in what has already been changed in Iraq, for example.
Not convinced? Let’s look at those who don’t like Bush.
From last Sunday’s Washington Times:
“Tens of thousands of protesters are expected to descend upon New York to harass Republicans and steal the limelight from the president.
“Among the groups sending contingents are some that have been protesting Mr. Bush’s policies and presidency from the start: the AIDS activist group ACT UP; feminists Code Pink, the National Organization for Women and NARAL http://catholiclight.stblogs.org
127.0.0.1
2004-08-30 15:54:57
2004-08-30 19:54:57
Isn’t Zell Miller pro-life?
A good reason to vote for George W. Bush is that it’s nothing you’ve got to apologize for, as in “well, the lesser of two evils,” etc.
George W. Bush is not evil. He is an honorable man. A good man. I’m looking forward to voting for a decent human being.
I’m looking forward to voting for Bush even more so then last time. (‘Course, being in Massachusetts, my vote might not make much of a dent, but all the same.)
I remember 9/11. I remember Bush saying and I quote: “this is going to be a long, long war.” Sometimes I think I’m the only one who remembers that. “I’m a patient man,” said the CIC. I’d like to think I’m a patient woman.
I remember former Iraqi government “policies”: the horrendous treatment of women, for example. The torture and death of those who dared to dissent from this guy Hussein’s commandments. Plastic shredders. Yikes. To put it mildly.
Soon after 9/11—very soon, sadly—many in this country went from flag waving to Bush-bashing. Not surprising. Disappointing, perhaps. But not all that daunting. Some people apparently thing throwing folks feet-first into plastic shredders isn’t terrorism at all. I’m not one of these people.
I’m pro-life.
I support the war on terror—AND the action in Iraq. I support President Bush and find the notion of a Kerry presidency not only appalling but terrifying. Why? Because I’m PRO-LIFE!
Repeat: I support the war on terror and the action in Iraq. I support people who want to govern themselves. While I pray for Hussein, I believe he WAS a weapon of mass destruction. I’m gratified—not satisfied, but gratified—in what has already been changed in Iraq, for example.
Not convinced? Let’s look at those who don’t like Bush.
From last Sunday’s Washington Times:
“Tens of thousands of protesters are expected to descend upon New York to harass Republicans and steal the limelight from the president.
“Among the groups sending contingents are some that have been protesting Mr. Bush’s policies and presidency from the start: the AIDS activist group ACT UP; feminists Code Pink, the National Organization for Women and NARAL re it stayed conservative.
It’s funny that many Democrats complain that their party is drifting to the right, while many Republicans complain that the GOP is drifting to left. Pretty soon, there won’t be much left to distinguish the two. So there may come a time very soon when we ask why should anyone vote for either one when there isn’t a dime’s difference between them. That time hasn’t come yet, but the writing’s on the wall.
]]>
3869
2004-08-30 14:11:53
2004-08-30 18:11:53
open
open
the_stupid_partys_jumping_around_on_gay_marriage
publish
0
0
post
You proceed from a misconception. Whether life begins at conception is not primarily a religious question, but a scientific and metaphysical question. Either life begins at conception and abortion is the murder of an innocent human being or it is not? You can’t be personally opposed, but okay with keeping it legal.
Meanwhile, the prohibition against murder is a moral one and since most moral questions have their origin in religion, should we then legalize all murder?
And how is it hypocritical to stand up for what you should be standing up for? The “Catholic Church” did not fairly to protect children. Some (maybe numerous) bishops and priests and laypeople did. But the Catholic Church is more than just a few or even most bishops, priests, or laypeople, but is primarily the Body of Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.
As for the claims about Bush, those are the fevered imaginings of those who hate Bush and want to find ways to attack him. You are willing to give credence to “reports” advanced not by responsible journalists but by partisan operatives, but you are not willing to grant that life begins at conception.
I suspect that contrary to your first statement, you’re not really personally against abortion and this is just an attempt to troll for reaction. After all why would you be posting in a month-old entry that nobody but me is going to see?
Does life begin at conception or at birth?
It begins at conception. Ask any scientist worth his or her salt. Or, if you prefer, ask John Kerry.
Since the answer is based on religious opinion
Wrong. The answer is based on science.
and I am a firm believer in the separation between church and state
Hey, don’t take this the wrong way, but seems to me like you’re a firm believer in the separation of intelligence and human discourse.
abortion should remain legal.
and:
I am a Catholic
Are you sure your name is “julie j” and not JFK?