ironmonk Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 (edited) Think of this baby... [img]http://24.26.95.128/oliviaimg/olivia_04.jpg[/img] Now, visualize 1/4 inch stainless steel tube hooked to a vaccum cleaner with a rotating blade on it tearing this baby to pieces. A vote for Kerry will be a vote for that. God Bless, ironmonk Edited March 27, 2004 by ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulls Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 ironmonk needs to make some billboards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathgirl Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 sad thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 And this is a vote for Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 (edited) The boy was playing with a culter bomblet! You know what they look like? Kind of like something that would draw a small child to come over and pick it and and play with it. Edited March 27, 2004 by Iacobus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Abortion is bad. But so is this. Neither man is truly pro life. They are pro life in some areas but they are cut and paste pro lifers. What we need is some one who is 100% pro life. Oh and that yellow stick. That is a cluster bomblet. It explodes like a frag generde if moved. It will TEAR the child who picks it up apart killing or maiming them. Sounds like a 1/4 stainless steel tube in a yellow lead shell to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson Weber Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 What we also need, Iacobus, are impeccable clergymen, but we have to made do with what we have, and a vote for Bush is prudent and wise, even if he isn't fully, completely, purely, and impeccably Pro-Life. A non-vote for a vote in another direction will damage the cause for life. A consistent and thoroughly Pro-Life action would be a vote for Bush because that is what will advance the Pro-Life cause. The question, when it comes to voting, isn't whether a likely candidate is 100% Pro-Life (because this is not the case) but what action will do the best for the Pro-Life movement. In the United States alone, 4,000 innocent children between sunset last night and sunset this evening will feel the pain of abortion and subsequently, their hearts will stop. Kerry will ensure that this continues without qualification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 What I am saying is that any unnatural death is wrong. Wheiter it be from war or abortion or anything. But voting for Bush will be a vote saying that the child in the picture who played with a cluster bomblet is okay to the same extent as voting for Kerry would say that abortion is okay. If voting for someone who does not respect life in all stages is a sin voting for Bush is just as bad as voting for Kerry. Look at it this way, a vote for Kerry would be a vote for the pro life movment in preventing wars and the DP. But a vote for Kerry would be a strike aganist abortion. But voting for Bush would be a vote for the end of abortion. Yet a vote for him would be saying the DP and war (pre emptive etc) is okay. Both men adavnce the pro life movement in one or two areas but kill it or injure it in one or two other areas. So does either really adavance the movement at all? So a vote for Kerry will work to preseve life in area X and weaken area Y. And a vote for Bush will adavnce the movement in area Y and weaken area X. And to make any real good headway in promting the sacredness of life from conception to death we need to be working together. However, Bush has polorized the USA to such a level I am suprised that anything, even collecting taxes, has been done. We need someone more moderate, like John McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinner Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Oh really...... I wasn't aware that Kerry's platform included a promise to never engage in any war, or discontinue the use of any particular weapons. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Kerry supported the war in Iraq. So far the only thing you have going for your argument is the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Kerry supported the war yes. So did many people. I did the same way Kerry did. Sadam was a bad person, yes. Did he have WMD's? We couldn't find any. Kerry would have extended the search for WMD in Iraq with the UN. This is what I mean. Looking back at the run up to the war all that we based it on was wrong. We cannot find any WMD's. And don't say they were destoryed. If an army was invading your country for having VERY powerful weapons what you you do? 1) Use them 2) Dismantle them You would use them to stop the invasion. Why didn't SH uses the weapons that he "had?" And we were NOT hailed as liberaters. So many people over there are really mad at the CPA. They are very bad for ruling and very out of sync with the people. Most of the people of the world don't support this war. How, I ask, are we going to stop terriomism without help? It is a gobal war. Also if Iraq didn't have Al-Quida before the war they are present now. We manged to WEAKEN our Natl Sec. by going to war. Kerry wanted to contuine UN inspections. That would have been the wise thing to do. To win a gobal "war on terror" we are going to need the Inidians and the Pakastaniese and the Fillipoins and the French and the Germans and the Spainish. We canNOT go it alone and Bush's policies with the UN have nearly pushed it to the point of having to. What if we contuined the inspections? If Sadam was a threat we would have found something, maybe not in the 6 weeks we gave the UN, but we would have found something. THAN we went to war. Than the rest of the world would still be our friends, after 9/11 we had SO much international good will. Look at it today! And calling the Spainish people wimps for using their election to repersent what they wanted doesn't help. The more I hear Bush speak about Spain the more I come to think he doesn't know what a repbulic is. The Spainish voted out a PM who did NOT rep them for what they truly are and voted in someone who they think can do a better job. Our respone to this great example of a repbulic in action? Call them names and insult them for doing what they are REQUIRED TO DO. "When in the course of Human Events..." sound famialry? What I am saying is very though Kerry supported the war, if he was pres would we be in Iraq losing 1 or 2 Americans a day, losing 100's of Iraqis (INNOCENT Iraqis) a week? Would terroists be forming new cells of young men in Iraq at the numbers they are today? You can support the idea of inspections and threatening force if the inspections fail and avoid war. Note the UN pre war found NO WMD's and the US post war found NO WMD's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 And Sinner and IcePrincessKRS what I am saying is that a vote for Bush means a vote for this more gung ho war policy. It may reduce the numbers of abortions in the US. But that vote will cost lives in other areas. Same with Kerry. Voting for him will cost lives in abortion but save lives in other areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson Weber Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 The Bush Administration's Pro-Life Record: [url="http://www.nrlc.org/EandP/bush43record.pdf"]http://www.nrlc.org/EandP/bush43record.pdf[/url] Iacobus, as a side note, St. Francis did not say what your signature says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted March 27, 2004 Author Share Posted March 27, 2004 (edited) WRONG. There is NO comparison. All we need to do is the math. 1,300,000 dead innocent babies per year or a few thousand because of a war that in many people's eyes was justified. I think that the fact that the Iraqi people liked it speaks volumes. Kerry wants to kill innocent lives. Bush doesn't want innocents to suffer but there are causalties of war. There is no comparison between the iraq war and abortion. It is a sin to vote for kerry. [quote]What I am saying is very though Kerry supported the war, if he was pres would we be in Iraq losing 1 or 2 Americans a day, losing 100's of Iraqis (INNOCENT Iraqis) a week? Would terroists be forming new cells of young men in Iraq at the numbers they are today? You can support the idea of inspections and threatening force if the inspections fail and avoid war. Note the UN pre war found NO WMD's and the US post war found NO WMD's. [/quote] Just because they didn't find WMD's does not mean that they didn't exist. Saddam paid thousands to suicide bombers families for killing innocents. If kerry was pres we would be loosing JUST as many troops. AND PAYING FOR THE SLAUGHTER OF MILLIONS OF BABIES. Terrorists will always form new cells... do a little study on their mentality. If kerry was pres would would help the anti-semantic countries take out Israel. If kerry was pres millions of america's poor would be taxed heavy, along with the rich, which they would then cut jobs to put the poor on the street.... then people would have to go to kerry for money then he could raise taxes again to bleed us dry so that kerry can be the hand that feeds to millions of poor voters. Just like carter tried and ran us into the ground. I do not understand how any practical Catholic can equate 2000 to 5000 lives compared to the 1,300,000 lives per year (3,500 per day) of totally innocent baby lives. Edited March 27, 2004 by ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Carson, don't get me wrong. Bush is pro life in the area of abortion and Kerry isn't. I know that. But what I am saying is that Bush isn't anymore pro life than Kerry. Supporting death under any unnatural forms makes you not pro life. Ironmonk, any unnatural death is wrong. Numbers don't matter. In God's eyes seeing one of his creations die is just as bad as seeing 1000's or millions die. So there is a comprison it is VERY wrong for anything to die unnatural. Thus by the logic you are using voting for Bush is a sin as well as voting for Kerry and voting at all is almost as sin and not voting is a sin. Bush supports DP and war. Kerry supports abortion. Voting forces you to vote for death in some way. And not voting just means you approve of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts