| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Joseph P. Belk" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2003 06:16:08 PM |
| Object: |
Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
Many victories for Democrat political candidates, particularly in the
U. S. Senate, would be necessary to reverse the current fast erosion
of the Roe v Wade framework.
So, Sean Hannity's show today ( Wednesday, November 11/4/03 ) is the
worst possible kind of bad news for "pro-choice" radical abortion
advocates. The issue isn't abortion for Sean's news, but the issue
skirts the possibility that Democrat members of the U. S. Senate's
Intelligence Committee have elevated partisan politics to a literally
treasonous level. In a nutshell, Democratic lust for power has been
exposed in a memo sent by one Democrat senator to all other Democrat
senators on that committee. The memo outlines a twelve month campaign
to abuse the power of the Senate Intelligence Committee toward
creating a body of issues that can be exploited politically to damage
the Bush Administration and insure George W. Bush's defeat in November
2004. The explicit content of the memo: regardless of the issues that
actually surface ( a classic fishing expedition ) the Democrats will
"leak" potentially damaging information at the times most politically
opportune and demand appointment of a special prosecutor for further
politically motivated investigation ( a classic witch hunt ), all
timed to make the maximum impact on the 2004 campaign. The crass
partisan nature of the memo is obvious in almost every sentence; the
memo barely nods in passing to the need for improved security in the
face of current terrorist threats. That is the legitimate business in
which these Senate Democrats should be engaged, while they are clearly
subordinating your safety and the safety of all Americans to
Democrats' desire to rule.
The radio show just ended. The television show is tonight at 9:00 p.m.
EST on Fox News. Sean Hannity is likely to read the entire memo
again.The story is absolutely explosive!
Will this smoking gun alone wreak enough political damage for
Democrats in the U. S. Senate to assure 60 Republican votes for
cloture in 2005?
That and a Bush victory (a certainty if Democrats nominate Dean) would
put Roe v Wade in real jeopardy - as opposed to the purely histrionic
hand-wringing from radical abortion advocates up to this point.
Joseph P. Belk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....when Democratic senators oppose a judicial appointment because of
the nominee's opposition to Roe, they not only endorse but make a
litmus test out of one of the most intellectually suspect
constitutional decisions of the modern era. They practically require
that a judicial nominee sign on to logic that is, at best,
questionable, and at worst, disingenuous and results-oriented. In
doing so, they select not for faithful, but for unfaithful,
constitutional interpreters to people the federal judiciary.
- Edward Lazarus, former law clerk for U. S. Supreme Court Justice
Harry Blackmun, in "The Lingering Problems of Roe v. Wade," Oct.3,
2002.
See Lazarus' entire article at
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
04 Nov 2003 08:13:28 PM |
|
|
"Joseph P. Belk" <jpbelk@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:1kbgqv035auj5m0msvgmj3trc3bv4bhac2@4ax.com...
Many victories for Democrat political candidates, particularly in the
U. S. Senate, would be necessary to reverse the current fast erosion
of the Roe v Wade framework.
So, Sean Hannity's show today ( Wednesday, November 11/4/03 ) is the
worst possible kind of bad news for "pro-choice" radical abortion
advocates. The issue isn't abortion for Sean's news, but the issue
skirts the possibility that Democrat members of the U. S. Senate's
Intelligence Committee have elevated partisan politics to a literally
treasonous level. In a nutshell, Democratic lust for power has been
exposed in a memo sent by one Democrat senator to all other Democrat
senators on that committee. The memo outlines a twelve month campaign
to abuse the power of the Senate Intelligence Committee toward
creating a body of issues that can be exploited politically to damage
the Bush Administration and insure George W. Bush's defeat in November
2004. The explicit content of the memo: regardless of the issues that
actually surface ( a classic fishing expedition ) the Democrats will
"leak" potentially damaging information at the times most politically
opportune and demand appointment of a special prosecutor for further
politically motivated investigation ( a classic witch hunt ), all
timed to make the maximum impact on the 2004 campaign. The crass
partisan nature of the memo is obvious in almost every sentence; the
memo barely nods in passing to the need for improved security in the
face of current terrorist threats. That is the legitimate business in
which these Senate Democrats should be engaged, while they are clearly
subordinating your safety and the safety of all Americans to
Democrats' desire to rule.
The radio show just ended. The television show is tonight at 9:00 p.m.
EST on Fox News. Sean Hannity is likely to read the entire memo
again.The story is absolutely explosive!
Will this smoking gun alone wreak enough political damage for
Democrats in the U. S. Senate to assure 60 Republican votes for
cloture in 2005?
That and a Bush victory (a certainty if Democrats nominate Dean) would
put Roe v Wade in real jeopardy - as opposed to the purely histrionic
hand-wringing from radical abortion advocates up to this point.
Joseph P. Belk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
...when Democratic senators oppose a judicial appointment because of
the nominee's opposition to Roe, they not only endorse but make a
litmus test out of one of the most intellectually suspect
constitutional decisions of the modern era. They practically require
that a judicial nominee sign on to logic that is, at best,
questionable, and at worst, disingenuous and results-oriented. In
doing so, they select not for faithful, but for unfaithful,
constitutional interpreters to people the federal judiciary.
- Edward Lazarus, former law clerk for U. S. Supreme Court Justice
Harry Blackmun, in "The Lingering Problems of Roe v. Wade," Oct.3,
2002.
See Lazarus' entire article at
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
The democrats are in trouble. They have been in trouble for many years now.
The stigma of the Clinton administration has hurt them deeply.
Democrats have to realize a few things, if they want a chance again.
a) Most Americans support the war in Iraq, and our other battles against
Terrorism. Democrats need to stop bashing Bush on this. They need to unite
and stand behind the war.
Americans are not going to vote someone else in that will not finish the war
against terrorism, including Iraq.
b) Tax cuts were necessary and is what has spurred this economic recovery.
Americans are not going to vote for someone who is going to raise taxes
c) Liberal Democrats need to stop the name calling and constant bashing.
This has been turning Americans off of politics and is partly the main
reason why so many Democrat voters are not voting any longer, and more
people are leaving the democrat party.
There are several other issues Democrats need to work on, but those 3 are in
my opinion the top 3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Me" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 05:38:26 AM |
|
|
In article <tYWdnYXhdu4iwTWiRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
The democrats are in trouble. They have been in trouble for many years now.
The stigma of the Clinton administration has hurt them deeply.
Democrats have to realize a few things, if they want a chance again.
a) Most Americans support the war in Iraq, and our other battles against
Terrorism. Democrats need to stop bashing Bush on this. They need to unite
and stand behind the war.
We'll see. Most Americans originally supported the war in Iraa because,
in part, Bush said that reparations and a good deal of the cost of the
war would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenue and by other members of the
so called "coalition of the willing" but that's not happening. Bush is
about to sign a law that would give billions of money we do not have
to Iraq for no good reason when the money should have been a loan. Unless
most Americans like having a huge lien put on their wallet, this will
be a big issue in the campaign when Bush runs for office again.
Americans are not going to vote someone else in that will not finish the war
against terrorism, including Iraq.
True, but that doesn't preclude them voting for a Democrat.
Look what happened in NJ. The NJ state Republicans have been staying
that this year's election would be a mandate on unpopular Democratic
govornor, Jim McGreevey. They were right. The Republicans lost seats in
both NJ houses yesterday and the leader of the Senate republicans lost
his office. For the first time in many years, Democrats hold a majority
in both houses in NJ. This is with a supposedly unpopular Democratic
governor who has been raising taxes to pay for the huge budget deficit
that the Republicans ran up under the previous Republican governor.
This is despite heavy advertising by Republican candidates. This is the
first time since 1955 that the same party has controlled the House,
Assembly, and the governor's office in NJ since 1955.
See http://www.courierpostonline.com/news/southjersey/m110503b.htm
for details.
What happened in NJ yesterday is only a harbinger of what will probably
happen in the next federal election.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 06:15:32 AM |
|
|
"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-08DD8D.06382605112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
In article <tYWdnYXhdu4iwTWiRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
The democrats are in trouble. They have been in trouble for many years
now.
The stigma of the Clinton administration has hurt them deeply.
Democrats have to realize a few things, if they want a chance again.
a) Most Americans support the war in Iraq, and our other battles
against
Terrorism. Democrats need to stop bashing Bush on this. They need to
unite
and stand behind the war.
We'll see. Most Americans originally supported the war in Iraa because,
in part, Bush said that reparations and a good deal of the cost of the
war would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenue and by other members of the
so called "coalition of the willing" but that's not happening. Bush is
about to sign a law that would give billions of money we do not have
to Iraq for no good reason when the money should have been a loan. Unless
most Americans like having a huge lien put on their wallet, this will
be a big issue in the campaign when Bush runs for office again.
I agree, the money should be a loan.
If I am not mistaken, it is a "grant"
I doubt it will be a big issue.
Most Americans could care less about deficits. Why?
Because most American's only care about what is in his or her wallet. The
economy is turning around, people are spending more, meaning people have
more money. The stock market is going up. If this continues, THAT is what
Americans are going to care about.
The deficit is something that liberals use, and it is something most
Americans could absoluely care less about unless it affects them personally.
Americans are not going to vote someone else in that will not finish the
war
against terrorism, including Iraq.
True, but that doesn't preclude them voting for a Democrat.
The ONLY one that I can see that is willing to continue seeing the war in
Iraq finish and the war against terrorism is Joe Lieberman.
And to be honest, so far I have absolutely no problem with Joe Lieberman. I
can respect him.
Look what happened in NJ. The NJ state Republicans have been staying
that this year's election would be a mandate on unpopular Democratic
govornor, Jim McGreevey. They were right. The Republicans lost seats in
both NJ houses yesterday and the leader of the Senate republicans lost
his office. For the first time in many years, Democrats hold a majority
in both houses in NJ. This is with a supposedly unpopular Democratic
governor who has been raising taxes to pay for the huge budget deficit
that the Republicans ran up under the previous Republican governor.
This is despite heavy advertising by Republican candidates. This is the
first time since 1955 that the same party has controlled the House,
Assembly, and the governor's office in NJ since 1955.
See http://www.courierpostonline.com/news/southjersey/m110503b.htm
for details.
What happened in NJ yesterday is only a harbinger of what will probably
happen in the next federal election.
I doubt it, but if it does it does. I know who I am voting for unless
something drastic comes along to change my mind.
If Bush loses, he loses. I am not going to cry about it. I just want to
make sure that who ever does get in office finishes what we started and
doesn't go and erase all the tax cuts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 11:10:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 07:15:32 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Me" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-08DD8D.06382605112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
In article <tYWdnYXhdu4iwTWiRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
The democrats are in trouble. They have been in trouble for many years
now.
The stigma of the Clinton administration has hurt them deeply.
Democrats have to realize a few things, if they want a chance again.
a) Most Americans support the war in Iraq, and our other battles
against
Terrorism. Democrats need to stop bashing Bush on this. They need to
unite
and stand behind the war.
We'll see. Most Americans originally supported the war in Iraa because,
in part, Bush said that reparations and a good deal of the cost of the
war would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenue and by other members of the
so called "coalition of the willing" but that's not happening. Bush is
about to sign a law that would give billions of money we do not have
to Iraq for no good reason when the money should have been a loan. Unless
most Americans like having a huge lien put on their wallet, this will
be a big issue in the campaign when Bush runs for office again.
I agree, the money should be a loan.
Because Iraq should pay for the privilege of being invaded for lies,
right?
If I am not mistaken, it is a "grant"
I doubt it will be a big issue.
I doubt you gave it any thought.
But then, you don't think.
Most Americans could care less about deficits. Why?
Because most American's only care about what is in his or her wallet. The
economy is turning around, people are spending more, meaning people have
more money. The stock market is going up. If this continues, THAT is what
Americans are going to care about.
The deficit is something that liberals use, and it is something most
Americans could absoluely care less about unless it affects them personally.
You tit, it does. Where do you think the money to pay down the deficit
comes from? What are you, more incredibly stupid than we all thought?
[snip]
---
Militant Agnostic:
I don't know and you don't either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mizzyandrea" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 07:49:05 AM |
|
|
We'll see. Most Americans originally supported the war
*************************
I remember Vietnam.
I never supported the war.
As more an more young Americans come home in boxes, more and more hatred
toward Bush will generate..........
How dare he create a war over nothing!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 08:45:07 PM |
|
|
(Mizzyandrea) wrote in message news:<20031105084905.28634.00000250@mb-m24.aol.com>...
We'll see. Most Americans originally supported the war
*************************
I remember Vietnam.
I never supported the war.
As more an more young Americans come home in boxes, more and more hatred
toward Bush will generate..........
How dare he create a war over nothing!
Mizzy, what's missing in your calculations is that only three major
news networks existed during Vietnam, CBS, ABC and NBC. And they were
all in cahoots to see us defeated there. Nobody even watches these
leftist networks anymore, and the days of the likes of Dan Rather and
Peter Jennings spewing their hatred for America are long gone. People
have alternatives now, and whenever people have a choice, leftists
always lose. FOX is killing these frauds.
Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 09:09:16 PM |
|
|
"Marie A." <LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1dc521ed.0311051845.7d0782dd@posting.google.com...
mizzyandrea@aol.com (Mizzyandrea) wrote in message
news:<20031105084905.28634.00000250@mb-m24.aol.com>...
We'll see. Most Americans originally supported the war
*************************
I remember Vietnam.
I never supported the war.
As more an more young Americans come home in boxes, more and more
hatred
toward Bush will generate..........
How dare he create a war over nothing!
Mizzy, what's missing in your calculations is that only three major
news networks existed during Vietnam, CBS, ABC and NBC. And they were
all in cahoots to see us defeated there. Nobody even watches these
leftist networks anymore, and the days of the likes of Dan Rather and
Peter Jennings spewing their hatred for America are long gone. People
have alternatives now, and whenever people have a choice, leftists
always lose. FOX is killing these frauds.
Cordially, Marie
Marie,
Leftist socialist will never understand the threats we face. Until it is
too late.
They want to pull our troops out of Iraq with out finishing the job.
You know as well as I do, that Saddam would thrust his way back into power,
or another extremist.
Thus killing all the accomplishments we have made.
Like Bush said, the terrorist don't want to see peace in the middle east.
People like these leftist socialist are aligned with the terrorist.
They would rather see Bush shot and killed, and more attacks against the
U.S. and U.S. interest before they would want to see Saddam, Bin Laden, and
other extremist removed.
We are not in another Vietnam. They don't even realize how Vietnam was ran
and why it was a failure. This war is being run by the military, HUGE
difference from Vietnam.
By this time in Vietnam we had THOUSANDS of U.S. Soldiers killed.
This time, we don't even have close to those numbers.
They don't care that 36,000 Iraqis were dying each year from hunger due to
Saddam
They don't care that Saddam and his regime killed over 300,000 people
They don't care that Saddam constantly ignored the U.N.
They don't care that Saddam was working with France and Russia on weapons
They want to see Bush executed, they would foam at seeing that.
They are the true enemy, they will be defeated in the end like the rest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mizzyandrea" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 11:19:46 PM |
|
|
Leftist socialist will never understand the threats we face. Until it is
too late.
****************************
Bra starting to pinch, OhPissSpray?
I wouldn't know what Leftists like...... I'm a Libertarian.
Sorry you're too stupid to understand what that is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
06 Nov 2003 01:52:27 AM |
|
|
Marie A. <LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com> wrote:
mizzyandrea@aol.com (Mizzyandrea) wrote in message news:<20031105084905.28634.00000250@mb-m24.aol.com>...
We'll see. Most Americans originally supported the war
*************************
I remember Vietnam.
I never supported the war.
As more an more young Americans come home in boxes, more and more hatred
toward Bush will generate..........
How dare he create a war over nothing!
Mizzy, what's missing in your calculations is that only three major
news networks existed during Vietnam, CBS, ABC and NBC. And they were
all in cahoots to see us defeated there.
Ah, it was a vast media conspiracy.
Nobody even watches these
leftist networks anymore, and the days of the likes of Dan Rather and
The fact that 50,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Veitnames
died is really just "leftist" propaganda.
Psychotic paranoid.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mizzyandrea" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 08:48:10 PM |
|
|
Mizzy, what's missing in your calculations is that only three major
news networks existed during Vietnam, CBS, ABC and NBC. And they were
all in cahoots to see us defeated there. Nobody even watches these
leftist networks anymore, and the days of the likes of Dan Rather and
Peter Jennings spewing their hatred for America are long gone. People
have alternatives now, and whenever people have a choice, leftists
always lose. FOX is killing these frauds.
Cordially, Marie
**************************************
Which has what to do with the fact that Vietnam lasted some 10 years and Bush
just got us into another such situation?
He's so fucking "pro life" for fetuses but he doesn't give a damn about all
those American soldiers who are coming home in boxes...........
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph P. Belk" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
04 Nov 2003 10:21:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:13:28 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
The democrats are in trouble. They have been in trouble for many years now.
The stigma of the Clinton administration has hurt them deeply.
The root of the problem goes much further back. I first got wise to
Democrats before I even got involved in pro-life activity. For me, the
awakening was the McGovern Campaign in 1972. McGovern crashed and
burned, largely because he was far too liberal to be elected. Why,
then, did he win the nomination? Part of the answer was stealth
leftists - people (and I kew quite a few of them back then) who
thought it was a good idea to conspire and hijack the Democratic Party
from the "old guard" that had run things pretty much up until then.
McGovern lost the national election, but his campaign permanently
changed the Democratic Party through new party rules that permanently
put the party in the control of the radical Left. Clinton and his
fellow "Democratic centrists" at the Democrat Leadership Council were
patently frauds from the start. That's easy to see because Clinton was
nominated by delegates who were essentially the same radical left who
brought forth McGovern, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis.
For a different perspective on the same era, see the URL:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/StricherzProLifeDemocrats.htm
I wonder if the real problem with Democrats doesn't go all the way
back to FDR's congenial relationship with Josef Stalin. At the Yalta
conference, FDR and particularly FDR's American communist advisers
were instrumental in consigning Eastern Europe to about fifty years of
Soviet Communist tyranny. Ann Coulter's second best-selling book
describes the whole history of the American Left in the Cold War. The
title of her book is TREASON.
Democrats have to realize a few things, if they want a chance again.
I don't think Democrats can change, short of a reversal of the
1969-1972 revolution in the selection of delegates for the Democratic
National Convention. I expect to see them go the way of the Whigs.
A winning Democratic Party would have to be a pro-life, color-blind,
Christian Left. promoting the social gospel without denigrating the
salvation Gospel. The wrong half, the losing half, of the Democratic
Party is now firmly in charge.
a) Most Americans support the war in Iraq, and our other battles against
Terrorism. Democrats need to stop bashing Bush on this. They need to unite
and stand behind the war.
Americans are not going to vote someone else in that will not finish the war
against terrorism, including Iraq.
b) Tax cuts were necessary and is what has spurred this economic recovery.
Americans are not going to vote for someone who is going to raise taxes
c) Liberal Democrats need to stop the name calling and constant bashing.
This has been turning Americans off of politics and is partly the main
reason why so many Democrat voters are not voting any longer, and more
people are leaving the democrat party.
There are several other issues Democrats need to work on, but those 3 are in
my opinion the top 3
I am not so sure that Democrats are losers with either higher taxes or
the penchant for slander (by the way, Ann Coulter's third best-seller
exposing the American Left to the light of truth is titled SLANDER).
Moral corruption in Democratic leaders likewise does not seem an
insurmountable problem, at least while the press continues to carry
water for the radicals in the Democrat far Left wing. Witness Bill and
Hillary Clinton's scandals (Ann Coulter's first big best-seller, HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, chronicles the full weight ot the case
against the Clintons that surely would have cost any other political
figures their chance for election to national office) The political
survival of the Clintons speaks directly and clearly to the strong
bias toward the left in the major newspapers and news networks.
When it comes to election after election in the recent past, strong
national defense does seem to weigh heavily. But I would say that
abortion is the issue that kept Al Gore out of the White House, and
played significant roles in many key Republican victories since 1973.
I think that the scandalous treatment of Bush's nominees to Federal
courts will hurt Senate Democrats seeking re-election at least as much
as their flirtation with treason in the war on Terrorism.
After all, eighty per cent of the American people reject the extreme
pro-abortion position which the Democrat Left has enshrined in their
national Democratic Party platform at least since 1980.
Joseph P. Belk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....when Democratic senators oppose a judicial appointment because of
the nominee's opposition to Roe, they not only endorse but make a
litmus test out of one of the most intellectually suspect
constitutional decisions of the modern era. They practically require
that a judicial nominee sign on to logic that is, at best,
questionable, and at worst, disingenuous and results-oriented. In
doing so, they select not for faithful, but for unfaithful,
constitutional interpreters to people the federal judiciary.
- Edward Lazarus, former law clerk for U. S. Supreme Court Justice
Harry Blackmun, in "The Lingering Problems of Roe v. Wade," Oct.3,
2002.
See Lazarus' entire article at
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Me" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 05:46:41 AM |
|
|
In article <d9qgqvoprvbsa0cbe25ugkng92ehar75k5@4ax.com>,
Joseph P. Belk <jpbelk@fuse.net> wrote:
A winning Democratic Party would have to be a pro-life, color-blind,
Christian Left. promoting the social gospel without denigrating the
salvation Gospel. The wrong half, the losing half, of the Democratic
Party is now firmly in charge.
The facts say otherwise. Last year, Ed Rendell, who is an unabashadly
pro-choice Democrat ran and won the governor's election in PA which is
historically a very pro-life state. For the first time in many decades,
Pennsylvania has a pro-choice governor. Even the previous Democratic
governor, Robert Casey was anti-choice.
Two years ago, a pro-choice candidate won the governor's seat in NJ.
This year, pro-choice Democrats sweeped in NJ state elections. As a
result, for the first time since 1955, we have the same party in control
of all three branches of NJ's government and for anti-choice proponents,
that's a big step away from their goals.
Bill Clinton is about as pro-choice as a politician can get and he
trounced Dull (an anti-abortion) candidate in his last presidential
election and he beat the pants off Bush senior the first time he ran.
You can hide your head in the sand, but most people in the United States
really are pro-choice. That includes a huge number of Christians. If it
didn't than the Christian right wouldn't be seen as extremists, they
would be seen as mainstream thinkers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Bishop" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 08:39:04 AM |
|
|
Me wrote:
In article <d9qgqvoprvbsa0cbe25ugkng92ehar75k5@4ax.com>,
Joseph P. Belk <jpbelk@fuse.net> wrote:
A winning Democratic Party would have to be a pro-life, color-blind,
Christian Left. promoting the social gospel without denigrating the
salvation Gospel. The wrong half, the losing half, of the Democratic
Party is now firmly in charge.
The facts say otherwise. Last year, Ed Rendell, who is an unabashadly
pro-choice Democrat ran and won the governor's election in PA which is
historically a very pro-life state. For the first time in many decades,
Pennsylvania has a pro-choice governor. Even the previous Democratic
governor, Robert Casey was anti-choice.
Two years ago, a pro-choice candidate won the governor's seat in NJ.
This year, pro-choice Democrats sweeped in NJ state elections. As a
result, for the first time since 1955, we have the same party in control
of all three branches of NJ's government and for anti-choice proponents,
that's a big step away from their goals.
Bill Clinton is about as pro-choice as a politician can get and he
trounced Dull (an anti-abortion) candidate in his last presidential
election and he beat the pants off Bush senior the first time he ran.
One could also note that pro-choice presidential candidates have won a
majority of the electorate in the last 3 elections.
You can hide your head in the sand, but most people in the United States
really are pro-choice. That includes a huge number of Christians. If it
didn't than the Christian right wouldn't be seen as extremists, they
would be seen as mainstream thinkers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 03:13:53 PM |
|
|
Bert Bishop <bert_bishop@eudroamail.com> wrote in message news:<3FA90B88.E2AB50D5@eudroamail.com>...
You can hide your head in the sand, but most people in the United States
really are pro-choice. That includes a huge number of Christians. If it
didn't than the Christian right wouldn't be seen as extremists, they
would be seen as mainstream thinkers.
Bert, you and your kind are whistlin' past the graveyard, and you know
it. Historically, liberals have always run to the courts by way of
doing an end-run around the legislative process, whether it be the
Congress and Senate or that of usurping states rights. No better
example of this can be found anywhere than in Roe v Wade, a decision
made by a like-minded court and which would not have passed a popular
vote then - and wouldn't to this day. And it's for this precise reason
that liberals chose to co-opt the rights of states to legislate in
these matters, trusting instead that nine hacks in black robes would
get it done for them. And it's worthy of note in this connection that
your same crowd reviles this very same court when they occasionally
rule against you, as in Bush v Gore. Nine people decided this, Bert,
and that's the long and short of it.
Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Bishop" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
06 Nov 2003 01:22:47 PM |
|
|
"Marie A." wrote:
Bert Bishop <bert_bishop@eudroamail.com> wrote in message news:<3FA90B88.E2AB50D5@eudroamail.com>...
You can hide your head in the sand, but most people in the United States
really are pro-choice. That includes a huge number of Christians. If it
didn't than the Christian right wouldn't be seen as extremists, they
would be seen as mainstream thinkers.
Bert, you and your kind are whistlin' past the graveyard, and you know
it. Historically, liberals have always run to the courts by way of
doing an end-run around the legislative process, whether it be the
Congress and Senate or that of usurping states rights. No better
example of this can be found anywhere than in Roe v Wade, a decision
made by a like-minded court and which would not have passed a popular
vote then - and wouldn't to this day. And it's for this precise reason
that liberals chose to co-opt the rights of states to legislate in
these matters, trusting instead that nine hacks in black robes would
get it done for them. And it's worthy of note in this connection that
your same crowd reviles this very same court when they occasionally
rule against you, as in Bush v Gore. Nine people decided this, Bert,
and that's the long and short of it.
Cordially, Marie
Marie,
I think you misunderstood me. I was not complaining about the results
of the last election. I was only pointing out that "pro-choice" people
continue to get elected. The battle still rages. (One might note that
"pro-life" people also continue to get elected).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
09 Nov 2003 11:07:52 AM |
|
|
Bert Bishop <bert_bishop@eudroamail.com> wrote in message news:<3FAA9F87.53A48C8A@eudroamail.com>...
"Marie A." wrote:
Bert Bishop <bert_bishop@eudroamail.com> wrote in message news:<3FA90B88.E2AB50D5@eudroamail.com>...
You can hide your head in the sand, but most people in the United States
really are pro-choice. That includes a huge number of Christians. If it
didn't than the Christian right wouldn't be seen as extremists, they
would be seen as mainstream thinkers.
Bert, you and your kind are whistlin' past the graveyard, and you know
it. Historically, liberals have always run to the courts by way of
doing an end-run around the legislative process, whether it be the
Congress and Senate or that of usurping states rights. No better
example of this can be found anywhere than in Roe v Wade, a decision
made by a like-minded court and which would not have passed a popular
vote then - and wouldn't to this day. And it's for this precise reason
that liberals chose to co-opt the rights of states to legislate in
these matters, trusting instead that nine hacks in black robes would
get it done for them. And it's worthy of note in this connection that
your same crowd reviles this very same court when they occasionally
rule against you, as in Bush v Gore. Nine people decided this, Bert,
and that's the long and short of it.
Cordially, Marie
Marie,
I think you misunderstood me. I was not complaining about the results
of the last election. I was only pointing out that "pro-choice" people
continue to get elected. The battle still rages. (One might note that
"pro-life" people also continue to get elected).
Which is all well and fine to the extent that the representative
process proceeds in this manner. None of us ever had a problem with
that, Bert. What we did have a problem with was the SCOTUS ursupation
of that state by state process in 1973. We are a republic, sir. It's
rather quite galling for liberals to continually do end runs around
this system via the courts, and then come back later pointing to a few
isolated elections as widespread support for a position imposed on the
rest of us by a court they deliberately used to distort the process
from the very get go. You side is continulaly assailing the very
fabric of what this country is all about, but yet want to impeach
republican presidents for merely being republican presidents. Your
crowd are the dangerous ones, my dear man.
Cordially, Marie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
09 Nov 2003 12:57:36 PM |
|
|
On 9 Nov 2003 09:07:52 -0800, (Marie A.) wrote:
Bert Bishop <bert_bishop@eudroamail.com> wrote in message news:<3FAA9F87.53A48C8A@eudroamail.com>...
"Marie A." wrote:
Bert Bishop <bert_bishop@eudroamail.com> wrote in message news:<3FA90B88.E2AB50D5@eudroamail.com>...
You can hide your head in the sand, but most people in the United States
really are pro-choice. That includes a huge number of Christians. If it
didn't than the Christian right wouldn't be seen as extremists, they
would be seen as mainstream thinkers.
Bert, you and your kind are whistlin' past the graveyard, and you know
it. Historically, liberals have always run to the courts by way of
doing an end-run around the legislative process, whether it be the
Congress and Senate or that of usurping states rights. No better
example of this can be found anywhere than in Roe v Wade, a decision
made by a like-minded court and which would not have passed a popular
vote then - and wouldn't to this day. And it's for this precise reason
that liberals chose to co-opt the rights of states to legislate in
these matters, trusting instead that nine hacks in black robes would
get it done for them. And it's worthy of note in this connection that
your same crowd reviles this very same court when they occasionally
rule against you, as in Bush v Gore. Nine people decided this, Bert,
and that's the long and short of it.
Cordially, Marie
Marie,
I think you misunderstood me. I was not complaining about the results
of the last election. I was only pointing out that "pro-choice" people
continue to get elected. The battle still rages. (One might note that
"pro-life" people also continue to get elected).
Which is all well and fine to the extent that the representative
process proceeds in this manner. None of us ever had a problem with
that, Bert. What we did have a problem with was the SCOTUS ursupation
of that state by state process in 1973. We are a republic, sir. It's
rather quite galling for liberals to continually do end runs around
this system via the courts, and then come back later pointing to a few
isolated elections as widespread support for a position imposed on the
rest of us by a court they deliberately used to distort the process
from the very get go. You side is continulaly assailing the very
fabric of what this country is all about, but yet want to impeach
republican presidents for merely being republican presidents. Your
crowd are the dangerous ones, my dear man.
Cordially, Marie
Hell, Marie, why not go back to the root of the 'problem' and attack
Mapp v. Ohio. Hell, go whole hog and attack Marbury v. Madison.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mizzyandrea" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 05:10:05 PM |
|
|
No better
example of this can be found anywhere than in Roe v Wade, a decision
made by a like-minded court and which would not have passed a popular
vote then - and wouldn't to this day
*********************************
tough *****
abortion is legal and will remain so.........
get used to it, shitbird!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Republicans may be unelectable by 2004 |
04 Nov 2003 10:32:16 PM |
|
|
Joseph P. Belk <jpbelk@fuse.net> wrote:
The root of the problem goes much further back. I first got wise to
Democrats before I even got involved in pro-life activity. For me, the
awakening was the McGovern Campaign in 1972. McGovern crashed and
burned, largely because he was far too liberal to be elected.
No, it's because he stated that he was in favor of the Viet Nam war
and Nixon said he had a plan for peace.
Turns out that they were both being dishonest. McGovern in order to
appease Johnson, and Nixon in order to get elected.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Republicans may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 07:15:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 04:32:16 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote, in part:
No, it's because he stated that he was in favor of the Viet Nam war
and Nixon said he had a plan for peace.
Funny, I thought people voted for Nixon instead of McGovern because
they were afraid that McGovern would give them what Nixon eventually
delivered - after Gerald Ford became President, though, and not by any
choice or action of President Ford, but by a vote in the
Democratic-controlled Congress...
an abandonment of the country and people of South Vietnam to Communist
enslavement, which led to many people fleeing South Vietnam under
terrible risks.
It's a pity that American troops aren't in Thailand now, searching for
the pirates who committed sexual assaults against some of the "boat
people" with the same intensity it is hoped the army of Pakistan is
applying to the search for Osama bin Laden.
For that matter, it's a pity Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba aren't
likely to undergo a regime change in the near future. Come to think of
it, it's a pity that isn't likely to happen to mainland China either.
No more murdering tyrants.
And that's what the leaders of those countries are - and what George
Bush isn't, despite what some of his more vocal critics might say. I'm
not saying his Administration is perfect, but despite all the sympathy
that other countries expressed to the United States after September
11, it sure doesn't seem as though too many other countries are
willing to stand by the U.S. in doing something about it.
We still see societies in existence where children are encouraged to
look on non-Muslims as less than equal fellow-citizens.
Of *course* if one calls that a "threat", then one might say that
America is lucky that a black-ruled nation, having the military
position in the world that America instead in fact enjoys, is not
judging America by that standard. So what? America should count itself
lucky - and clean up its act. This doesn't mean expecting white
Americans not to be mistrustful of people living in terrible poverty,
and with other reasons for alienation, as potential criminals: it
means actually fixing the problem, by giving black children growing up
good healthy neighborhoods to grow up in, not by throwing unrealistic
politically-correct platitudes at the problem and expecting it to fix
itself.
America IS a country that produces Klansmen, and if some KKK members
flew an airplane into a building in some part of Africa that was the
world's leading democracy, bearing the same military relation to the
U.S. as the U.S. did to Iraq, events would follow. The true test of a
nation, as of an individual, is how well he behaves when somebody is
not standing over him with a whip.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Republicans may be unelectable by 2004 |
06 Nov 2003 01:26:26 AM |
|
|
John Savard <jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray>Fischer) wrote, in part:
No, it's because he stated that he was in favor of the Viet Nam war
and Nixon said he had a plan for peace.
Funny, I thought people voted for Nixon instead of McGovern because
they were afraid that McGovern would give them what Nixon eventually
delivered - after Gerald Ford became President, though, and not by any
choice or action of President Ford, but by a vote in the
Democratic-controlled Congress...
an abandonment of the country and people of South Vietnam to Communist
enslavement, which led to many people fleeing South Vietnam under
terrible risks.
Snicker. There you go again, elevating your opinion of what's good
for people above all else. Even people's lives.
It's a pity that American troops aren't in Thailand now, searching for
Yeah, the US could kill a million Thai like the US killed about a
million Vietnamese.
You're not going to be happy until the world is a dictatorship under
your oppressive thumb.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Republicans may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 07:34:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 04:32:16 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Joseph P. Belk <jpbelk@fuse.net> wrote:
The root of the problem goes much further back. I first got wise to
Democrats before I even got involved in pro-life activity. For me, the
awakening was the McGovern Campaign in 1972. McGovern crashed and
burned, largely because he was far too liberal to be elected.
No, it's because he stated that he was in favor of the Viet Nam war
and Nixon said he had a plan for peace.
I think you are confusing 1968 with 1972.
Turns out that they were both being dishonest. McGovern in order to
appease Johnson, and Nixon in order to get elected.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 06:03:09 PM |
|
|
In article <1kbgqv035auj5m0msvgmj3trc3bv4bhac2@4ax.com>,
says...
Subject: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004
From: Joseph P. Belk < >
Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion
Many victories for Democrat political candidates, particularly in the
U. S. Senate, would be necessary to reverse the current fast erosion
of the Roe v Wade framework.
Liar Belk is back again, I see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "golddodgearies" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
06 Nov 2003 07:49:36 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a13a00f20ac815698b6fb@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
In article <1kbgqv035auj5m0msvgmj3trc3bv4bhac2@4ax.com>,
says...
Subject: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004
From: Joseph P. Belk < >
Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion
Many victories for Democrat political candidates, particularly in the
U. S. Senate, would be necessary to reverse the current fast erosion
of the Roe v Wade framework.
Liar Belk is back again, I see.
I love people like you who publically defend murdering children and
then call other people liars. You're so fucked-up you're barely human.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Bernath" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
07 Nov 2003 12:35:23 PM |
|
|
(golddodgearies) wrote:
I love people like you who publically defend murdering children and
then call other people liars.
But you're lying your ***** off when you claim abortion is murder, so
why shouldn't we call you a liar?
Yes, it really is that obvious. Specks aren't people. If you say they
are, you're either a kook or a liar. My money's on liar.
You're indistinguishable from a PETA freak screaming that "Meat is
Murder", so we pay you as much heed as we pay PETA freaks.
You're so fucked-up you're barely human.
You just can't wait to start sending people to the camps, can you?
Greg Bernath
.
|
|
|
| User: "golddodgearies" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
09 Nov 2003 07:23:25 PM |
|
|
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<e4pnqv8fhe6bm8haed0unnib8om5fplchm@4ax.com>...
golddodgearies@yahoo.com (golddodgearies) wrote:
I love people like you who publically defend murdering children and
then call other people liars.
But you're lying your ***** off when you claim abortion is murder, so
why shouldn't we call you a liar?
Yes, it really is that obvious. Specks aren't people. If you say they
are, you're either a kook or a liar. My money's on liar.
Oh I see. Your Strawman proves I'm a liar or 'kook'. How positively precious.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Bernath" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Democrats may be unelectable by 2004 |
09 Nov 2003 07:46:03 PM |
|
|
(golddodgearies) wrote:
Greg Bernath <gregignoresthis@earthlink.net> wrote:
(golddodgearies) wrote:
I love people like you who publically defend murdering children and
then call other people liars.
But you're lying your ***** off when you claim abortion is murder, so
why shouldn't we call you a liar?
Yes, it really is that obvious. Specks aren't people. If you say they
are, you're either a kook or a liar. My money's on liar.
Oh I see. Your Strawman proves I'm a liar or 'kook'. How positively precious.
Observation, not a strawman. Not my fault if it fits.
But please, prove me wrong. Gvie us the exact definition of "child"
that you're using. You seem absolutely positive that we support child
murder, so you must know exactly what you're talking about. Because if
you didn't, that would mean you've been talking out of your ***** and
making wild accusations, and we wouldn't want to see that.
And I hope you're not just sitting on your ***** allowing child murder
to happen; I certainly wouldn't allow such to happen around me. People
who think that life is precious must be going all out to defend it,
otherwise they'd reveal themselves as frauds. Your list of
accomplishments in that regard has to be substantial, so just list
them here.
Greg Bernath
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Senate Republicans may be unelectable by 2004 |
04 Nov 2003 10:18:31 PM |
|
|
Joseph P. Belk <jpbelk@fuse.net> wrote:
Many victories for Democrat political candidates, particularly in the
U. S. Senate, would be necessary to reverse the current fast erosion
of the Roe v Wade framework.
And, coincidentally, more people now say they would vote AGAINST Bush
than for him.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Republicans may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 06:02:03 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:bo9tmm$4u5$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Joseph P. Belk <jpbelk@fuse.net> wrote:
Many victories for Democrat political candidates, particularly in the
U. S. Senate, would be necessary to reverse the current fast erosion
of the Roe v Wade framework.
And, coincidentally, more people now say they would vote AGAINST Bush
than for him.
Actually that is false
And more people have said they would vote for a person who is going to
FINISH the war in Iraq and against terrorism.
Show me one democratic candidate willing to do that
The only one I can think of is Lieberman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Bernath" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Republicans may be unelectable by 2004 |
05 Nov 2003 05:20:57 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
And more people have said they would vote for a person who is going to
FINISH the war in Iraq and against terrorism.
Osama who?
Show me one democratic candidate willing to do that
Show me one Republican candidate willing to do that. It sure isn't
George W. Bush.
Mind you, we can't be sure, because he won't tell us what his plan is,
other than to prance around in a flight suit and yell "Bring them
on!".
However, best guess indicates he wants to stay the current course.
Which means a half-assed job, guaranteed to bring escalating violence
and no end to the war. Instead of doing some serious crow-eating to
get the world to help out, he's intent on insulting everyone with the
"Do as we tell you, because we're America!" routine. And predictably,
the world is responding with the upraised middle finger.
At least the Democrats have a coherent plan. One that doesn't involve
the US going it alone, even though we can't maintain present troop
levels past 6 months ahead, much less increase them.
It's kind of a shame for Bush that he acts like that, because if he
admitted blame and asked for help, his popularity would skyrocket and
he'd guarantee his reelection. But that's not going to happen, as Bush
is pathologically incapable of admitting he was wrong about anything.
Greg Bernath
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
