For all the Dem Bashers!

[Jaime]

You must be glad that this silly thread didn't die after all

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Mar 6 2006, 05:08 PM']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. 
[right][snapback]904536[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Because it ignores the rest of reality, more specifically, where most of the pro-lifers are. read my post. the whole thing. i explained the situation already.

[Ash Wednesday]

hot stuff, may I also have a hamburger with Tillamook coagulated milk on it?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Mar 7 2006, 01:47 AM']Because it ignores the rest of reality, more specifically, where most of the pro-lifers are.  read my post.  the whole thing.  i explained the situation already.
[right][snapback]905092[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But you're assuming that a rise in the number of pro-life Democrats would mean necessarily mean a decrease in the number of pro-life Republicans, which makes no sense.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 7 2006, 07:32 AM']But you're assuming that a rise in the number of pro-life Democrats would mean necessarily mean a decrease in the number of pro-life Republicans, which makes no sense.
[right][snapback]905145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


What she said.

[Ash Wednesday]

(Never mind. Back to you Bob...) Edited March 7, 2006 by Ash Wednesday

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Mar 6 2006, 06:19 PM']You must be glad that this silly thread didn't die after all
[right][snapback]904681[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, I think I did demonstrate how it is silly to use this news as an opportunity for partisan cheerleading.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 7 2006, 06:32 AM']But you're assuming that a rise in the number of pro-life Democrats would mean necessarily mean a decrease in the number of pro-life Republicans, which makes no sense.
[right][snapback]905145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think he figured (perhaps erroneously) that people here were encouraging pro-lifers to switch to the Democratic Party.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 7 2006, 08:33 PM']I think he figured (perhaps erroneously) that people here were encouraging pro-lifers to switch to the Democratic Party.
[right][snapback]905859[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Which is not the case (at least as I read it)

I also don't see it as partisan cheerleading.

Rather, I see it as a celebration of finding definite signs of life in an area many people have written off as being dead.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Mar 7 2006, 06:32 AM']But you're assuming that a rise in the number of pro-life Democrats would mean necessarily mean a decrease in the number of pro-life Republicans, which makes no sense.
[right][snapback]905145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
nope, you've got that backwards, i made no assumptions. This was my point exactly, for the statement "It's always good to add Dem Pro-lifers" to be true, adding Dem pro-lifers must never have any costs that are more serious than the benefit of adding a Dem pro-lifer. That is the assumption that i was faulting in the earlier statement.

I tried (and apparently failed) to show that if you took pro-lifers from another source to get them in the Dem party, it could be detrimental to the pro-life cause. (Granted, i didn't use a good analogy. I thought it would be reasonably self-explanatory.)

Here's a better one:
Imagine a district with 11 republicans 6 of whom are pro-life, 5 who don't care about abortion and would thus choose a pro-abort; and 8 dems, all of whom are pro-abort. Let's have an election:
Results:
Primary:
Republicans get a pro-life candidate
Dems get a pro-abort candidate
Election:
Republican pro-lifer wins.

Now, lets have two of the pro-lifers migrate to the dem party.
Results:
Primary:
GOP runs a pro-abort candidate
Dems run a pro-abort candidate
Election:
We don't really care because everyone was pro-abort! (although in this case, the dems will win)

Hopefully that cleared things up. It's *NOT* always a good thing to have more pro-life *DEMOCRATS.* It *IS* always good to have moreof a given population pro-life.

[Jaime]

Or

And this is the point

Go back to district 11 where you have 11 republicans and six of them are pro-life and you have 8 democrats that are prochoice. Then after much prayer and hearing about Sen Bartling


Four of the democrats become prolife.


Wacky

The more prolife dems the better off we are

Edited March 8, 2006 by jaime

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Mar 7 2006, 09:14 PM']Or

And this is the point

Go back to district 11 where you have 11 republicans and six of them are pro-life and you have 8 democrats that are prochoice.  Then after much prayer and hearing about Sen Bartling
Four of the democrats become prolife.
Wacky

The more prolife dems the better off we are
[right][snapback]905944[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yep.

No need to have fewer pro-life Rs.

Not talking about converting Rs to Ds, but rather converting pro-choice to pro-life. Which is, in the end, a much more significant conversion.

[Desert Walker]

Anybody care to read this? It's from one of my posts in another thread and I'd like to get some feedback on it.

[quote]I like to think about liberalism and conservatism, as best I can, in the philosophical sense. I have come to the conclusion that these are two, emerging philosophies that have not yet been defined in a complete way by their adherents. But the definition process is occurring in our time. I am also realizing that the emerging Philosophy of Liberalism is an effective tool in Satan's hands for undermining the effectiveness of a certain set of the moral principles of Catholicism; mainly those regarding sexual pleasure. The American Democratic Party has apparently embraced this philosophy in a large way. The emerging Philosophy of Conservatism is an interesting contrast. It is having difficulty distinguishing itself from the traditional American Republican Party. This is something that it must accomplish because the hardline GOP is still representative of an economic system that has difficulty abiding by Catholic moral principles regarding fairness and justice toward the worker, one of the pillars of effective capitalism. The evils within capitalism are still considered by non-conservatives to be evils that conservatives promote. But the emerging Philosophy of Conservatism bases its vision for society more so on that of Medieval Europe than on the dark state of affairs common to industrial society. I am beginning to see that the Philosophy of Conservatism is, in allying itself with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, fighting against the degeneration of society into the mire of immorality and the injustice that results. It appears to be on the front lines of American society against Lucifer's work in the world. Liberalism seems to be more of a cooperating philosophy (probably unwittingly like a "useful idiot" of communist masterminds). It appears to be cooperating with Evil.

There is SO much more that can be said about this.

Liberalism and conservatism in the political sense is a VERY relative and shifting dynamic. The reason is the concept of "status quo." If the status quo of current politics is that access to an abortion (for example) should be considered a right under civil law then anyone who challenges that status quo could correctly be labeled liberal and anyone defending that status quo could be considered conservative. This understanding of these two opposite adjectives comes from a narrow dictionary definition (the one Snarf provided earlier). You can only see this fact, however, if you drop the notion that these adjectives have anything to do with morality, and that the history of how the current status quo came into being is not considered. For, in the case of abortion, it was a liberal approach to the status quo of abortion's illegality that resulted in the current status quo of abortion's legality (not, of course, in the moral sense of law but in the civil sense of law).[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 8 2006, 08:57 AM']Anybody care to read this?  It's from one of my posts in another thread and I'd like to get some feedback on it.
[right][snapback]906460[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's rather long, rambling, and unclear, and I'm not sure how exactly it is directly relevant to this thread.

Perhaps you should clarify some particular point, and make another thread on it.

[Socrates]

In all honesty, I think these events show more about the state of South Dakota, than they do about the national Democratic or Republican parties.

In a very conservative "red state" like SD, both Republicans and Democrats tend to be pro-life and conservative.
In godless liberal 'blue states" like New York and California, both Democrats and Republicans are rather godless and liberal.

And the "red-states" (so-called because Bush-backing states were colored red on an election map) tended to vote Bush over Kerry.