Quitcheryappin'!!!! It could be worse. They could call you a terrible fluke!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Hope,

I didn't know you were in SA. My little bro who travels all over the world said that it was the only time in all his travels that he was terrified. He didn't go into detail, just said he was very afraid the whole time he was there.

Nia:

You pegged it right..

I am kinda BOSSY..continuing to work on that...

I'm soooo tired of that REPUTATION...

..sighing...

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

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

and I am a little sensitive to bossiness.....trigger, ya know.

I didn't mean it as an insult.....it just took me a little while to understand your assertiveness....which is really a great quality.

THANKS, NIA!! I have been working on just that..ASSERTIVENESS..rather than PASSIVITY or AGGRESSIVENESS..I'm glad it's noticable... even on line...used to be FIGHT or FLIGHT for me...

You hit that nail on the head! People are afraid to call things by their true name for fear of being labeled a racist or intolerant these days. It really is sad.




No, I don't mind bringing it up. Heck...for that matter some of my not so distant family are black. Find and Italian that doesn't have some African lineage and I will show you a person in denial.

It's funny, people get all weirded out when i talk about race...throw abortion in there and wow! But I will say that if I were a black in this country today I would be ANGRY at those that support abortion. It has decimated the black community. The AA community would be 35% larger today absent this plague. It really is a shame.

I too "like" Obama. He seems personable...and bright. Take away the hypocrisy of his religious beliefs as it pertains to abortion and some underlying racial tones and he could be just what this country needs. But based on his countless number of "present" votes and his strong support of some radical ideas and I don't think he is electable. Both democratic candidates will eventually cause the conservative base (which is not too fond of McCain but will see little alternatives) to get out the vote.

I personally haven't posted politics on MB much at all. I don't think it belongs here in more than cursory fashion (I don't mind bantor about it at all). IMO, there are thousands of other outlets for political discussion on the web and doing it here may drive away some BS's that NEED this place. Therefore, don't expect an argument or debate from me. There will not be one.

That said (of course), I had to speak up about something I noticed recently:

Several times you have made a point of telling her that the Democratic Party is the rascist party. Now you are telling her the Democratic Party is the abortion party. However, using the same logic that you used to make the claim that blacks (Mimi) shouldn't vote for the democratic party because they are the traditional party of slavery & rascism...

[sidebar..I researched the ridiculous claim that the Republicans were solely responsible for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, as I suspected, found out that is dead wrong. Go to this link Wikipedia & Civil Rights Act of 1964 to read up yourself on the Act passage and you can see who sponsored it (Democrats including Kennedy & Johnson), who pushed it through committee (Democrats & Johnson), who voted for and against it by party and region (which neither party had a majority and even more Northern Republicans voted against it than Northern Democrats). Your "claim" hangs a lot of the role of the Republican Senator from Illinois and he did play a crucial role, delivering the Republican votes to quash the filibuster (HERE's a LINK about Senator Dirksen [Dirksen and CRA of 1964], however, the non-southern Democrats were the ones that really were responsible for the Act getting passed. Don't forget that the Democrats have taken the brunt of the backlash for doing so as demonstrated by all the Red states down south (as the rascist's nearly all vote Republican TODAY after being "betrayed" in 1964 by "their" Democratic Party). I find it pretty hilarious for a Republican to claim the Democrats are the rascist party TODAY based upon revisionist history, at best...but whatever...IMO, just about every white person in America pre-1950 or pre-1970, would be considered a rascist by today's standards...Republicans and Democrats alike.]

Moving on....using your logic, I have to ask why it is that Christian's HAVE to vote Republican because Republicans are supposedly the "pro-life" party when you consider that abortion is NOT a legislative issue but a judicial/constitutional issue AND SEVEN of the nine current Supreme Court Justices were nominated by Republican presidents. It's also not like the make-up of the Surpreme Court just changed to Republican appointed jurists, O'Conner was appointed by Reagan and Rehnquist by Nixon. They (Republican nominated Justices) have had 20 years to fix this, but haven't. Why not??? Would this not make the Republicans the true Pro-Abortion party??? All talk but no "real action"?

Maybe they are just addicted to all the FREE religious single-issue votes they get? Poor Christians across the country have been suckered by their do-nothing rhetoric while "Big Business", the true agenda, laughes all the way to the bank. Why else would Bush nominate his white house counsel for the a Supreme Court position instead of a clearly Pro-life candidate? Republicans still controlled the Senate in 2006 so there shouldn't have been a problem there, you think??? Don't you just know that she would have supported Roe v. Wade for whatever reason, in the future??? The religious right sure seemed to be scared of her ridiculous nomination.

IMO, Republicans LIKE the law the way it is interpreted today (despite their zealous desire to infringe on the Right to Privacy in other matters). Plainly, it helps them win.

Our presidents position on the abortion issue is irrelevant in my opinion. There is little they can (or want to) do to change it. There is even less ability or inclination to do it in Congress. Absent a Constitutional Amendment banning it, once and for all, initiated by the states, I just don't see it happening, ever.

In conclusion...the same logic you used to tell Mimi, that it was illogical for you to understand how she as a black woman could vote for the historical rascist Democratic Party is the similiar logic I use to state that I find it odd a Christian Pro-lifer, such as yourself, would vote for McCain or any Republican when the Republican party alone (as I think that since the appointment of Kennedy in 1988 the Republican appointed Justices have controlled the court) are ACTUALLY responsible for our current Judicial supported/held, constitutional right to privacy ... abortion.

Thus, whose hands is the blood CURRENTLY on???? What about your actions MEDC supporting, previously, candidates and the Republican Party that as we speak has a significant hand in destroying God's children?? Are YOU similiarly responsible for, as you say, "voting in a pro choice candidate puts blood on the hands of every person that votes for that person"????? Perhaps YOU, not MIMI,should reconsider your party affiliations as your party seems to be full of closet abortionists and hypocrites (personally, I think both parties are chock full of hypocrites...they ARE politicians)

In case you didn't know. I am proudly a Christian AND a Democrat. I am greatly anticipating a run away victory this fall. I think the GB presidency will go down in history as, likely, the worst...ever. I believe strongly we would ALL be better off today if Gore or Kerry had had their victories not taken away from them (think Supreme Court and Ohio/election "machines"). If Obama wins the Democratic Nomination, I will be very interested to see how and how many of the people, nationally and regionally, vote. I'm guessing that if Obama is running, this will be the largest number of Americans voting EVER. I think the racial undercurrents are larger than most anticipate. Just look at the primary turnout already. It's gonna be a wild election year.

Respectfully (you know I luv ya, MDEC...politics should be a community debate and not a community war),

Mr. Wondering (Go Clinton or Obama)

Mr W...YOU know better than what you wrote. It is common knowledge that several SC appointees have changed their position AFTER they were on the bench. Kennedy has turned out more liberal than expected and O'Connor was a disaster.

BTW Mr. W...I am not a republican.

And abortion trumps everything in my eyes. It results in more deaths per week that the Iraq war has to date.

WOW, Mr.W ... a great rant, that I just happen to agree with nearly every word. Well Done!!!

I don't often agree with the Catholic Church...BUT, I think they got it 100% right here. My pastor...the largest church by far in the Philly area feels the same way about born again believers...

Voting for Abortion

Any Catholic politician who casts a vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion, commits a mortal sin.

When such a vote indicates that the Catholic politician believes that abortion is not always gravely immoral, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canons 751 and 1364, because of heresy.

When such a vote is intended to have the effect of making abortion legal, or more easily obtainable, or more widely available, such a politician incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication, under canon 1398, as someone who is attempting to provide substantial or essential means for women to obtain abortions. Catholic politicians who pass laws which legalize, protect, or widen access to abortion, are providing essential assistance to women who want to obtain abortions.

It is not sufficient for Catholic politicians to claim that they are “personally opposed” to abortion. If any Catholic politician favors legalized abortion, despite a claim of personal opposition, such a politician commits a mortal sin by promoting abortion and by voting in favor of abortion.

The same is true for any Catholic who casts any vote with the intention of legalizing abortion, or of protecting laws allowing abortion, or of widening access to abortion. Such a voter commits a mortal sin and incurs a sentence of automatic excommunication for two reasons. First, they are committing the sin of heresy by believing that abortion should be legal and available. Second, they are committing the grievous sin of providing women with substantial or essential assistance in obtaining abortions, by attempting to legalize or broaden access to abortion.

However, if, for a period of time, Catholic politicians and voters are unable to enact a law prohibiting all abortion, then Catholic politicians and voters may in good conscience vote for whichever law offers the greatest restrictions and limits on abortion. Subsequently, Catholic politicians and voters are required by the moral law to continue to enact further restrictions and limits on abortion, to the greatest extent possible, and, at every possible opportunity, to vote for laws which completely outlaw abortion.

Voting for Politicians

In general, the moral law requires Catholic voters to vote for those candidates who oppose abortion over those who favor abortion. However, there are exceptions to this general principle. For example, if a political candidate favors abortion, but is a member of a party which generally opposes abortion, a Catholic voter may, in good conscience, vote for that candidate, with the intention of giving more political power to the party which opposes abortion.

In another case, a Catholic voter might, in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion candidate, if the political office would offer no opportunity for the elected candidate to vote for or against abortion. Even so, every Catholic voter should consider that anyone who supports abortion, as if it were a woman’s right, or as if it could ever be a moral choice, must necessarily be someone who has a seriously limited understanding of morality and justice. Such a person would not often be the better candidate for any office in place of one who understands that abortion is gravely immoral.

In every case, a Catholic should vote in such a way as to obtain as many restrictions on abortion as possible, and so as to obtain the end to legalized abortion as soon as possible.

Taken from Catholic Planet

oh...and where did anyone suggest that the Republicans were SOLELY responsible for the CRA in 1964. I must have missed that.

I posted this link on a thread to Mimi a few weeks back----> LINK

In it, it acknowledges that there was bi-partisan support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

~ Marsh

I agree with this and so was hesitant about starting this thread.

I do want to say, THANK YOU for your TIME and EFFORT, Mr. W.

I found your post to be VERY INFORMATIVE AND HELPFUL !!

You did it a couple times.

Found one:

MEDC on Jan 17 at 10:30 am



BTW...historically, isn't it interesting that the Catholic Church battles with the interpretation of the word "liberte"?

Personally, I like MY right to privacy to stay just as it is as I do fear, to some extent, the day the majority of American's are Catholic (take into account latino immigration and it may not be that distant a proposition). It's not the American Catholic today, I fear, it's the Vatican and it's intentions (and directives on how to vote like you post above), that I fear. Our nation and Constitution was founded, to a certain extent, upon such fear. Interestingly, the "Religious Right" may just find themselves arguing FOR the "right to privacty" someday.

"Viva, Liberte".

Mr. Wondering

P.S. - Going to the Piston game...gotta run

I have enjoyed reading this thread. I always vote and usually end up voting for the Democrats. I remember my parents almost laughed me out of their living room when I told them I had done my research and thought Dukakis was the best choice in 1988. Since then, I keep doing the research and seem to keep voting for Democrats. It doesn't make a difference in my state. We haven't had a Democrat win here since JFK in 1960. I still go though, knowing I am voting for the person I feel will be the best for our country and the world's environment.

I am heartened there are others who think like me on this board. I also enjoy reading the opinions of those who disagree with me. For the most part, your comments are respectful. The past 8 years have been hard to watch for most of us.


Here's to change in 2008.

well, since it was a comparison of the TWO parties that was being discussed I think the actual vote numbers tel the same story. And remember..it was a Democratic President who under most circumstances would garner much more support from his own party and less from Republicans... but the raw vote numbers wert

Democratic Party: 164-96 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)

Republicans in EVERY single category had a higher % (by at least 14%) voting for passage. That's a pretty significant difference.

great link Marsh.

Medc

Am I wrong in thinking the following true? I have read or heard that:

abortion is nowhere NEAR the problem with poor, black or latino as it is with middle, and upper class white class. I have always been told that the very women who would have the most trouble caring for a child ARE NOT having the largest share of abortions. It is the women in middle and upper class that are having the majority ob abortions, NOT because of any HARDSHIP but because it doesn't fit into their plans.

Right or wrong? Thanks for any info.

Newdg need help if any one is interested

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/sho...e=0#Post3397532