| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"awthrawthr" |
| Date: |
15 Aug 2004 03:19:35 PM |
| Object: |
Do Democrats have more abortions? |
RE: ABORTION'S EFFECT ON ELECTIONS SINCE 1990
Everyone knows the Democrat Party has slipped in the last decade.
But is it dying?
After nearly 50 years of Democratic majority control in both Houses,
Republicans now hold both majorities. To make matters worse for the
Democrats, 37 governors and thirty State Houses are also in the hands
of the Republicans.
All sorts of reasons are given for why Democrats have lost so much
ground in state and federal elections over the last decade.
To name just a few unsatisfactory explanations:
It's Rush Limbaugh.
It's the Christian Right.
It's the Democrats sudden loss of ability to get its message out.
None of them comes even close to being the real reason.
The real reason may shock you -- particularly if you are a Democrat.
The real reason is that for the first time in our history, a
gargantuan shift in voter demographics has occurred. It's a shift that
is 100-times larger than the 395,000 troops lost during World War II.
Yes, 395,000 voters is a lot of voters. It's a decent sized city. But
compare that to forty million voters -- that's several states. Forty
million is also how many lives were lost due to abortion since Roe v.
Wade.
That translates into over 40 million potential voters. Were most of
the 40 million killed potential Democrats or Republicans?
The choice to have an abortion doesn't occur randomly. To put it in
the simplest of terms, not all, but most abortions are had by people
who support abortion. That would be -- not all -- but mostly,
Democrats.
Maybe the trend isn't due just to the issues but to the "tissues."
Because the tissues can grow up and vote, or they can be discarded by
choice. Could it be that, after thirty-one years of Roe v. Wade, 40
million abortions have selectively decimated the Democratic Party?
Abortion is gradually becoming the poison pill of the left. Why?
Because more libs have had abortions than conservatives.
Ergo, fewer children to influence. With Roe v. Wade being 31 years
old, the voting demographic is becoming skewed, with young people
presently being more opposed to abortion than the middle aged.
About 10 million of the 40 million aborted preborn babies would have
reached voting age by now.
But they didn't.
Because most women are reluctant to reveal their abortions, we don't
know for sure what the breakdown would be between Democrats and
Republicans.
So let's just say that 55% of the abortions were had by Democrats,
while 45% were had by Republicans.
If that estimate is correct, 5.5 million babies were lost to possible
influence from Democrat parents, whereas the Republican parents lost
potential influence on 4.5 million babies.
That million-baby difference of potential Democrats spread over 50
states is an average of twenty-thousand babies per state who could
have grown up to be Democrat voters -- enough to have given Al Gore an
undisputed electoral victory had they lived to vote.
I'd be the first to suggest that my assumed percentages could be
incorrect. But the percentages only determine the speed in which the
demographic change impacts election results
One argument opposing this possibility is that children aren't clones,
so they don't necessarily vote like their parents. It's fair to say,
nonetheless, that two-parent families who oppose abortion are more
likely to influence their children's voting habits than adults whose
children don't exist because of one or more abortions.
While children don't always listen to their parents, whether Democrat
or Republicans, many children apparently do.
For instance in 1990, the under-30 voters voted Republican only 41% of
the time in House races. In other words, it was a tyical under-30
voter demographic.
But by the year 2000, the same age group voted Republican 48% of the
time in House races. In 2000, the voters who were 27 and younger were
all born after Roe v. Wade.
That amazing uptick for Republicans occurred despite MTV's well
publicized effort to Rock the Vote for liberal candidates. (MTV
obstensibly is 'nonpartisan' but their audience and their agenda is
decidely liberal.)
What's more powerful than MTV on young voters? Maybe it's parents. But
you can't influence a child's voting potential if that 'child' never
made it past the fetus stage.
Maybe that's why the year 2000 marked the first time in nearly half a
century that Republicans won a majority in both Houses.
In 2002, the nation was surprised yet again when Republicans took
still more House and Senate seats. By then, all the voters who were 29
or younger were born after Roe v. Wade.
Fewer than 10 million of the 40 million dead fetuses would have been
eligible to vote at that point -- if only they hadn't been aborted.
Are we seeing the beginnings of a post-Roe hurricane? The 2002
election is a bit of a mystery, because the Voter News Service
withheld age-related exit polls for that election.
There are some indicators that point in the direction of a more
conservative electorate, including being prolife.
We do know, for example, that Republicans out-polled Democrats in the
federal races by an astonishing 50% to 46% -- a stunning surprise to
almost everyone. Was it the under-30 voters who sank the abortion
candidates?
Consider that in 2002, 11 of the 12 candidates backed by the National
Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) were defeated. The
abortion-supporting Emily's List candidates also lost in 16 of 21
national races, despite spending millions of dollars.
In that election, Democrats suffered surprise Senate losses in
Georgia, Missouri, and Minnesota. According to a FOX News Dynamic exit
poll, the difference was the prolife vote which contributed a 2.4%
cushion for the victors.
In Minnesota, Mondale mistakenly tried to make abortion rights his
centerpiece issue while the winner, Coleman, steadfastly stood by his
prolife views.
Just nine years ago, a Gallup poll reported that a mere 34% of those
polled identified themselves as prolife while 58% identified
themselves as pro-choice. But by 2000, the prolife versus pro-choice
poll showed a 46 to 46 tie.
With each election cycle another six million post-Roe survivors become
eligible to vote, while another two million would-be eligible voters
are absent because they were aborted.
By 2004, that means 42 million potential voters. By 2008, the number
climbs to 54 million post-Roe survivors eligible to vote.
Those large numbers threaten continued Democratic Party losses both
now and decades into the future. But how much more of a slide can the
Democratic Party tolerate before being put on life support?
For instance, if the Republican 50 to 46 advantage in the federal
legislative races were to climb to, say 52% to 44% by the year 2008,
what would the impact be for the Democrats? How many Democrat
candidates would be left standing? Meanwhile the "Democrat" brand --
tied and chained inexoribly to abortion as a mainstay of its platform
-- guarantees more and more future losses.
Each election cycle has the potential to leak even more seats away
from the Democrat minority. Should the Democrat ship permanently list,
how many will stay on board? For instance, would the Democrat Party be
able to hold together if the US Senate were to become cloture proof?
In sports, a team's chances for victory can be decimated by injuries.
In politics, the Democratic team might already be hampered by the
first 10 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. To make matters worse,
there are at least 30 million more abortions not yet accounted for at
the polling booths that could spell the end of the Democratic Party
forever.
Indeed, can the Democratic Party -- the home of abortion rights --
survive 120 million mostly conservative post-Roe survivors at the
ballot box?
Thomas Jefferson wrote that all of us are endowed by our Creator to
have certain inalienable rights, including life. Could it be that the
Democratic Party was founded by Jefferson only to be aborted by Roe?
-----------------------------------------
Visit brightwinger.com/blogs "For Your Average Genius"
.
|
|
| User: "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Democrats have more abortions? |
17 Aug 2004 10:33:58 AM |
|
|
On 15 Aug 2004 13:19:35 -0700,
"Awthrawthr" <awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
ABORTION'S EFFECT ON ELECTIONS SINCE 1990
Everyone knows the Democrat Party has slipped in the
last decade.
But is it dying?
Nope. Not even close!! But the Republicans are becoming a
National Laughingstock, thanks to our inept Warmonger-in-Thief.
After nearly 50 years of Democratic majority control in both Houses,
Republicans now hold both majorities.
Temporarily. Soon to be corrected, if INTELLIGENT voters all go
to the polls on Nov. 2nd.
All sorts of reasons are given for why Democrats have lost so
much ground in state and federal elections over the last decade.
I think we're about to find, around 80 days from now, how
UNtrue *that* is!
To name just a few unsatisfactory explanations:
It's Rush Limbaugh.
It's the Christian Right.
More properly known as the RRR Cult: The "Religious Radical
Right" wingnuts and individual-liberties-haters.
It's the Democrats sudden loss of ability to get its message out.
None of them comes even close to being the real reason.
Boy, are YOU ever about to make a total fool of yourself!!
The real reason may shock you -- particularly if you are a
Democrat. The real reason is that for the first time in our history, a
gargantuan shift in voter demographics has occurred. It's a shift that
is 100-times larger than the 395,000 troops lost during World War II.
Yes, 395,000 voters is a lot of voters. It's a decent sized city. But
compare that to forty million voters -- that's several states. Forty
million is also how many lives were lost due to abortion since Roe v.
Wade.
That translates into over 40 million potential voters. Were most of
the 40 million killed potential Democrats or Republicans?
I don't know, you moronic DOLT.
Why don't you ask the 40 million or so people NOW living -- who
never would have existed if their mothers had NOT had abortions?
The ones who were born LATER, by the woman's CHOICE, when the
timing was BETTER for carrying-to-term for their mothers. And who
thus were far likelier than would have been a person born earlier, to
be born into a more stable and loving environment.
And while you're about it, you ALSO might remind them that IF
their mothers had NOT had the abortions earlier, THEY would never
have been born, since their mothers' lives would have taken different
paths, and thus THEY (the ones who were born) never would have
existed, because the gametes that comprised Stage One of THEIR
reproductive process would never have MET. **Then** ask them
whether or not it bothers them at all that that their mothers had HAD
those earlier abortions.
Since the vast majority of women who opt for abortion when the
timing is bad -- go on later to HAVE children, by choice -- when the
timing is better... the population of America is almost exactly the
SAME as it would have been if abortion had remained outlawed.
(Of course, after you've reminded all 40 million of those people
of all of this, you're likely to find that the population contains a
LOT more egalitarian *Democrats* than before -- and substantially
fewer bigoted and repressive *Rebulblicans* who don't give a rat's
***** for personal liberties. So by all means -- DO that!)
So nice try, bigot.
Next time, try growing a brain.
<remaining hateful idiocies flushed>
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Democrats have more abortions? |
17 Aug 2004 02:00:31 PM |
|
|
"GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
<xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:41272095.80634672@netnews.mchsi.com...
On 15 Aug 2004 13:19:35 -0700,
"Awthrawthr" <awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
ABORTION'S EFFECT ON ELECTIONS SINCE 1990
Everyone knows the Democrat Party has slipped in the
last decade.
But is it dying?
Nope. Not even close!! But the Republicans are becoming a
National Laughingstock, thanks to our inept Warmonger-in-Thief.
After nearly 50 years of Democratic majority control in both Houses,
Republicans now hold both majorities.
Temporarily. Soon to be corrected, if INTELLIGENT voters all go
to the polls on Nov. 2nd.
"INTELLIGENT" perhaps, but definitely NOT moral.
All sorts of reasons are given for why Democrats have lost so
much ground in state and federal elections over the last decade.
I think we're about to find, around 80 days from now, how
UNtrue *that* is!
How so?
To name just a few unsatisfactory explanations:
It's Rush Limbaugh.
It's the Christian Right.
More properly known as the RRR Cult: The "Religious Radical
Right" wingnuts and individual-liberties-haters.
Such as the liberty to keep that which one has earned, and private property
rights.................
It's the Democrats sudden loss of ability to get its message out.
None of them comes even close to being the real reason.
Boy, are YOU ever about to make a total fool of yourself!!
The real reason may shock you -- particularly if you are a
Democrat. The real reason is that for the first time in our history, a
gargantuan shift in voter demographics has occurred. It's a shift that
is 100-times larger than the 395,000 troops lost during World War II.
Yes, 395,000 voters is a lot of voters. It's a decent sized city. But
compare that to forty million voters -- that's several states. Forty
million is also how many lives were lost due to abortion since Roe v.
Wade.
That translates into over 40 million potential voters. Were most of
the 40 million killed potential Democrats or Republicans?
I don't know, you moronic DOLT.
Why don't you ask the 40 million or so people NOW living -- who
never would have existed if their mothers had NOT had abortions?
The ones who were born LATER, by the woman's CHOICE, when the
timing was BETTER for carrying-to-term for their mothers. And who
thus were far likelier than would have been a person born earlier, to
be born into a more stable and loving environment.
And while you're about it, you ALSO might remind them that IF
their mothers had NOT had the abortions earlier, THEY would never
have been born, since their mothers' lives would have taken different
paths, and thus THEY (the ones who were born) never would have
existed, because the gametes that comprised Stage One of THEIR
reproductive process would never have MET. **Then** ask them
whether or not it bothers them at all that that their mothers had HAD
those earlier abortions.
Since the vast majority of women who opt for abortion when the
timing is bad -- go on later to HAVE children, by choice -- when the
timing is better... the population of America is almost exactly the
SAME as it would have been if abortion had remained outlawed.
Hypothesis contrary to fact.
(Of course, after you've reminded all 40 million of those people
of all of this, you're likely to find that the population contains a
LOT more egalitarian *Democrats* than before -- and substantially
fewer bigoted and repressive *Rebulblicans* who don't give a rat's
***** for personal liberties. So by all means -- DO that!)
So nice try, bigot.
Next time, try growing a brain.
What's up with the insults?
<remaining hateful idiocies flushed>
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Democrats have more abortions? |
17 Aug 2004 06:41:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:00:31 -0700,
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" wrote:
"Awthrawthr" <awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
ABORTION'S EFFECT ON ELECTIONS SINCE 1990
Everyone knows the Democratic Party has slipped in the
last decade.
But is it dying?
Nope. Not even close!! But the Republicans are becoming a
National Laughingstock, thanks to our inept Warmonger-in-Thief.
After nearly 50 years of Democratic majority control in both Houses,
Republicans now hold both majorities.
Temporarily. Soon to be corrected, if INTELLIGENT voters all go
to the polls on Nov. 2nd.
"INTELLIGENT" perhaps, but definitely NOT moral.
All sorts of reasons are given for why Democrats have lost so
much ground in state and federal elections over the last decade.
I think we're about to find, around 80 days from now, how
UNtrue *that* is!
How so?
To name just a few unsatisfactory explanations:
It's Rush Limbaugh.
It's the Christian Right.
More properly known as the RRR Cult: The "Religious Radical
Right" wingnuts and individual-liberties-haters.
Such as the liberty to keep that which one has earned, and
private property rights...
Wrong. The **primary** agendas of the RRR Cult are to:
(1) DENY women access to the remedy of safe and legal
abortion-upon-request.
(2) DEPRIVE 5% of the population of the EQUAL rights to
which they already are entitled (while LYINGLY calling
them "special" rights), on the basis of something as
TRIVIAL and ridiculous as their whining about their
sexual orientation.
The **secondary** agendas of the RRR Cult are to:
(1) Impose CENSORSHIP (or attempt to impose it) to
whatever degree may be possible, upon all sexual
(and even "violent") content on the Internet, movies,
and TV. Even to the point of threatening and
harrassing sponsors of TV shows they happen not to
like.
(2) Oppose gambling, whenever possible, including trying
to block new casinos and lottery venues.
In short, RRR cultists **all** have a sociopathic common
denominator that is best decribed by the following words:
-- Busybodyism
-- Hatefulness
-- Lack of respect for individual liberties
-- Stupidity
-- Control-freakishness
ANY of which, just as in the case with the "Awshucks"
and the "Attaboys," wherein ONE "Awshucks" can negate *
all* previous "Attaboys" -- those THOROUGHLY negate any
worthwhile qualities those moronic losers may happen to
possess, on a case-by-case basis.
(Remember this, farther down, where you ask my WHY I think
insults are called for. Insults are **exponentially** less damaging
to them than what their attempts to damage liberties could do to
America.)
There is NO EXCUSE for their abject stupidity and hatefulness.
It's the Democrats sudden loss of ability to get its message out.
None of them comes even close to being the real reason.
Boy, are YOU ever about to make a total fool of yourself!!
The real reason may shock you -- particularly if you are a
Democrat. The real reason is that for the first time in our history, a
gargantuan shift in voter demographics has occurred. It's a shift that
is 100-times larger than the 395,000 troops lost during World War II.
Yes, 395,000 voters is a lot of voters. It's a decent sized city. But
compare that to forty million voters -- that's several states. Forty
million is also how many lives were lost due to abortion since Roe v.
Wade.
That translates into over 40 million potential voters. Were most of
the 40 million killed potential Democrats or Republicans?
I don't know, you moronic DOLT.
Why don't you ask the 40 million or so people NOW living -- who
never would have existed if their mothers had NOT had abortions?
The ones who were born LATER, by the woman's CHOICE, when the
timing was BETTER for carrying-to-term for their mothers. And who
thus were far likelier than would have been a person born earlier, to
be born into a more stable and loving environment.
And while you're about it, you ALSO might remind them that IF
their mothers had NOT had the abortions earlier, THEY would never
have been born, since their mothers' lives would have taken different
paths, and thus THEY (the ones who were born) never would have
existed, because the gametes that comprised Stage One of THEIR
reproductive process would never have MET. **Then** ask them
whether or not it bothers them at all that that their mothers had HAD
those earlier abortions.
Since the vast majority of women who opt for abortion when the
timing is bad -- go on later to HAVE children, by choice -- when the
timing is better... the population of America is almost exactly the
SAME as it would have been if abortion had remained outlawed.
Hypothesis contrary to fact.
Wrong. The population has grown at a steady and healthy rate.
And many studies substantiate this. (I haven't time to look any up
now, but they're out there, and I've seen some valid and peer-reviewed
ones.)
(Of course, after you've reminded all 40 million of those people
of all of this, you're likely to find that the population contains a
LOT more egalitarian *Democrats* than before -- and substantially
fewer bigoted and repressive *Rebulblicans* who don't give a rat's
***** for personal liberties. So by all means -- DO that!)
So nice try, bigot.
Next time, try growing a brain.
What's up with the insults?
ADMIRABLY deserved!! See above.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Do Democrats have more abortions? |
17 Aug 2004 08:43:27 PM |
|
|
"GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!"
<xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:412292c7.12099015@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:00:31 -0700,
"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" wrote:
"Awthrawthr" <awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote:
ABORTION'S EFFECT ON ELECTIONS SINCE 1990
Everyone knows the Democratic Party has slipped in the
last decade.
But is it dying?
Nope. Not even close!! But the Republicans are becoming a
National Laughingstock, thanks to our inept Warmonger-in-Thief.
After nearly 50 years of Democratic majority control in both
Houses,
Republicans now hold both majorities.
Temporarily. Soon to be corrected, if INTELLIGENT voters all go
to the polls on Nov. 2nd.
"INTELLIGENT" perhaps, but definitely NOT moral.
All sorts of reasons are given for why Democrats have lost so
much ground in state and federal elections over the last decade.
I think we're about to find, around 80 days from now, how
UNtrue *that* is!
How so?
To name just a few unsatisfactory explanations:
It's Rush Limbaugh.
It's the Christian Right.
More properly known as the RRR Cult: The "Religious Radical
Right" wingnuts and individual-liberties-haters.
Such as the liberty to keep that which one has earned, and
private property rights...
Wrong.
I'm sorry; I confused the radical right with the radical left.
The **primary** agendas of the RRR Cult are to:
(1) DENY women access to the remedy of safe and legal
abortion-upon-request.
(2) DEPRIVE 5% of the population of the EQUAL rights to
which they already are entitled (while LYINGLY calling
them "special" rights), on the basis of something as
TRIVIAL and ridiculous as their whining about their
sexual orientation.
The **secondary** agendas of the RRR Cult are to:
(1) Impose CENSORSHIP (or attempt to impose it) to
whatever degree may be possible, upon all sexual
(and even "violent") content on the Internet, movies,
and TV. Even to the point of threatening and
harrassing sponsors of TV shows they happen not to
like.
(2) Oppose gambling, whenever possible, including trying
to block new casinos and lottery venues.
In short, RRR cultists **all** have a sociopathic common
denominator that is best decribed by the following words:
-- Busybodyism
-- Hatefulness
-- Lack of respect for individual liberties
-- Stupidity
-- Control-freakishness
ANY of which, just as in the case with the "Awshucks"
and the "Attaboys," wherein ONE "Awshucks" can negate *
all* previous "Attaboys" -- those THOROUGHLY negate any
worthwhile qualities those moronic losers may happen to
possess, on a case-by-case basis.
(Remember this, farther down, where you ask my WHY I think
insults are called for. Insults are **exponentially** less damaging
to them than what their attempts to damage liberties could do to
America.)
There is NO EXCUSE for their abject stupidity and hatefulness.
It's the Democrats sudden loss of ability to get its message out.
None of them comes even close to being the real reason.
Boy, are YOU ever about to make a total fool of yourself!!
The real reason may shock you -- particularly if you are a
Democrat. The real reason is that for the first time in our history,
a
gargantuan shift in voter demographics has occurred. It's a shift that
is 100-times larger than the 395,000 troops lost during World War II.
Yes, 395,000 voters is a lot of voters. It's a decent sized city.
But
compare that to forty million voters -- that's several states. Forty
million is also how many lives were lost due to abortion since Roe v.
Wade.
That translates into over 40 million potential voters. Were most of
the 40 million killed potential Democrats or Republicans?
I don't know, you moronic DOLT.
Why don't you ask the 40 million or so people NOW living -- who
never would have existed if their mothers had NOT had abortions?
The ones who were born LATER, by the woman's CHOICE, when the
timing was BETTER for carrying-to-term for their mothers. And who
thus were far likelier than would have been a person born earlier, to
be born into a more stable and loving environment.
And while you're about it, you ALSO might remind them that IF
their mothers had NOT had the abortions earlier, THEY would never
have been born, since their mothers' lives would have taken different
paths, and thus THEY (the ones who were born) never would have
existed, because the gametes that comprised Stage One of THEIR
reproductive process would never have MET. **Then** ask them
whether or not it bothers them at all that that their mothers had HAD
those earlier abortions.
Since the vast majority of women who opt for abortion when the
timing is bad -- go on later to HAVE children, by choice -- when the
timing is better... the population of America is almost exactly the
SAME as it would have been if abortion had remained outlawed.
Hypothesis contrary to fact.
Wrong. The population has grown at a steady and healthy rate.
And many studies substantiate this.
Not what I am referring to. "Would have been" is a hypothesis contrary to
fact.
(I haven't time to look any up
now, but they're out there, and I've seen some valid and peer-reviewed
ones.)
(Of course, after you've reminded all 40 million of those people
of all of this, you're likely to find that the population contains a
LOT more egalitarian *Democrats* than before -- and substantially
fewer bigoted and repressive *Rebulblicans* who don't give a rat's
***** for personal liberties. So by all means -- DO that!)
So nice try, bigot.
Next time, try growing a brain.
What's up with the insults?
ADMIRABLY deserved!! See above.
Deserved because they are "less damaging"; ok.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
www.awolbush.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
