For all the Dem Bashers!

[sidemunch88]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 26 2006, 05:51 AM']I was kind of thinking it was far sighted.  Sen Bartling is willfully going against party platform.  One lil democrat from one highly democratic state... 
[right][snapback]897982[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

...............................................................are you just trying to be funny here?


Seriously, if you think South Dakota is a "highly democratic state" you got somethin else coming. My family is from there...it is [i]not[/i] a blue state. It is as red as it comes

[Jaime]

[quote name='sidemunch88' date='Mar 1 2006, 02:10 PM'] ...............................................................are you just trying to be funny here?
Seriously, if you think South Dakota is a "highly democratic state" you got somethin else coming. My family is from there...it is [i]not[/i] a blue state. It is as red as it comes
[right][snapback]900884[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


My mistake. Everyone I know in SD is a democrat.

[Jaime]

[quote] President Bush in an ABCNews interview on Tuesday was asked about a South Dakota bill (HB 1215) that would ban all abortions in the state except to save a pregnant woman's life and said he "has always supported three exceptions" in any ban: rape, incest and the life of the woman, Reuters reports (Reuters, 3/1). South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds ®, who has indicated support for the bill, has 15 days to decide whether to sign the measure. If he does, the bill is scheduled to take effect on July 1. Kate Looby, director of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota, has said the group plans to challenge the measure in court if it is approved but added that the group has not decided whether to file the lawsuit in state or federal court (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 2/28). Bush said he would not speculate as to the outcome of the expected legal challenges surrounding the legislation, according to Agence France-Presse (Agence France-Presse, 2/28). He added, "I can tell you I will put people on the court without a litmus test. In other words, I haven't said to these judges, you know, 'Give me your opinion on this case if it would be coming your way'" (Reuters, 3/1). During the interview, Bush also was asked if he would include a "health" of the mother exception in abortion bans. He answered, "I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office" (Agence France-Presse, 2/28).[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Mar 1 2006, 07:53 AM']I disagree.  If Bush doesn't support the bill, he puts himself in the same category as Kerry. 

And Peroutka was a prolife candidate. 
The kids thing isn't meant to be demeaning.  There are a ton of kids on this board.
But my point is valid.  Conservatives on this board regularly choose to instead of being critical of Bush simply say "Hey he's better than Kerry".  And yes that's a lame response
[right][snapback]900659[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think this is time to pray that the bill succeeds, and for all involved with the process, not for partisan bickering.

If you voted for Peroutka, good for you - the reason I didn't was because, as I see it, there was simply too much at stake this election with the appointing of Supreme Court justices (and it turns out with the pro-life legislation being brought up in various states).
Let's face it, if Bush lost the election, Peroutka would not be President, but we would be stuck with President Kerry. If Kerry was President, (barring divine intervention) we would have (at least) two liberal activist 100% pro-abortion judges joining the Supreme Court who would stay there for life, and any hope of any pro-life rulings coming from the SCOTUS anytime soon would be absolutely nil.

I'm not a Bush fanatic, but I have still seen nothing to make me wish for a Kerry presidency.

And, since you voted for Peroutka, I find your constant sniping at "conservatives" odd and unbecoming. The Constitution Party is a [b]conservative[/b] party, and is to the Right of the GOP on nearly everything. The problem with the Republicans isn't that they're too conservative, but that they're not conservative enough!
Overall, it is conservatives (of whatever party) who are doing the most to promote the culture of life in this country, not the liberals.

[Jaime]

Who's sniping?

Its about accountability. Its stating things as they are. When people try to say that Bush is prolife, I remind them that he isn't. When a conservative is not being charitable, I say so.

You said that if Bush doesn't support the bill, shame on him. Now you have several sources saying that he is not showing support. And yet your only comment is "Oh let's get beyond the partisan politics"

No

Let's be accountable. Bush's reaction is bad.

That ain't sniping

[Ash Wednesday]

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

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

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

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

[Jaime]

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

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

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

[Ash Wednesday]

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

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

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

[Socrates]

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

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

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

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

Time to let this silly thread die.

[Jaime]

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

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


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


You don't like it? Don't post

Edited March 3, 2006 by jaime

[MagiDragon]

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

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

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






































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

[Jaime]

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

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

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


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

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

its Catholicism

[Socrates]

(For all you GOP bashers)

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

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

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

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

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







btw He's a Republican!!!

[Jaime]

And congratulations Gov Rounds.

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



See Soc it helps to give a contact.

[Socrates]

Thanks for the contact, hot stuff.