Ways to be a perfect Democrat..... (2 Viewers)

[Saint by the Bay]

That caught my eye too. Is wage garnishment for compulsory government health care adoption a way of staying out of our business? Like Cruize said, both sides are horribly flawed.

This is the position of one candidate not the party. It's not even the position of the other candidate in the presidential race.

It's one of the many reasons if Hillary wins her Health Care proposal will be a monumental failure for the second time.

 

[Thorin]

This is the position of one candidate not the party. It's not even the position of the other candidate in the presidential race.

It's one of the many reasons if Hillary wins her Health Care proposal will be a monumental failure for the second time.

Agreed. I thought maybe I could get away with that since so many other posters are throwing around generalizations. My bad.

 

[Rob Beaux]

You have to believe that it's OK to break our laws entering the
United States and not call them ILLEGAL Alians. They are not
immigrants.

At least they believe in spell check...

 

[MSUSousaphone]

Men are 'aliens', women are 'alians'.

 

[saintfan-n-alex]

"You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail,
but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House."

are the Reps doing the nasty with those than can get them in jail? along with their liar colleagues lol

 

[HouDat]

I'm happy to see that demagoguery is alive and well in both parties.

 

[ra]

:spam1:

 

[wamland]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LZMhqtd1EPI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LZMhqtd1EPI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[Pure Energy]

I think it was a slipshod to post this because the OP didn't caveat the post in any way, shape or form. In general we need to be careful when we use a broad brush. However, since the post has "legs" here's my 2 cents.

The only item I believe is fundamentally correct is that once a candidate announces as a Democrat they must become ProChoice. I can't remember the last Democratic nominee who was Pro-Life. History shows that once a Democratic candidate is running for President, his (or her) position must be ProChoice to be supported by the DNC even if that is in conflict with their previously stated values.

The most telling story I can think of is the conversion (subversion) of the Reverend Jesse Jackson from a ProLife to a ProChoice position. It's well documented in this story from the Washington Post in 1988 (please feel free to dispute any aspect of the story if you believe it to be factually untrue).

In January 1977, Jackson wrote a 1,000-word essay for the National Right to Life News. It was one of his many statements on the issue, including an ''Open Letter to Congress'' in which ''as a matter of conscience I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants.'' He spoke at the 1977 March for Life and asked, ''What happens . . . to the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience.''

* One final point: I think the Dems would have a much better shot of winning the GE if their candidate would adopt a ProLife stance. I don't believe Bush would have won either of the last two elections if Kerry or Gore were ProLife.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

* One final point: I think the Dems would have a much better shot of winning the GE if their candidate would adopt a ProLife stance. I don't believe Bush would have won either of the last two elections if Kerry or Gore were ProLife.

I disagree. Just like there are many that vote exclusively on this issue as pro life there are many that vote exclusively on it as pro choice. Kerry or Gore would have lost more support than they gained holding a pro life position.

 

[Pure Energy]

I disagree. Just like there are many that vote exclusively on this issue as pro life there are many that vote exclusively on it as pro choice. Kerry or Gore would have lost more support than they gained holding a pro life position.

True....But ProLifers are committed voters (those who will only vote for a candidate who supports their position) at roughly a 3 - 1 margin over ProChoicers.

http://74.52.109.100/forums/showthread.php?p=911015#post911015

 

[Sabine]

I disagree. Just like there are many that vote exclusively on this issue as pro life there are many that vote exclusively on it as pro choice. Kerry or Gore would have lost more support than they gained holding a pro life position.

I agree. I'm one of the many pro choice voters that sees it as nonnegotiable.

 

[RebSaint]

Abortion shouldn't even be an issue which the federal government addresses, but it reflects how far away from the constitution both parties are. It should be state issue, and only a state issue.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Abortion shouldn't even be an issue which the federal government addresses, but it reflects how far away from the constitution both parties are. It should be state issue, and only a state issue.

Agreed. It's no concern of the Federal governments at all.

Of course this can be said for the majority of things the Feds are involved in these days.

 

[Jonesy77]

Abortion shouldn't even be an issue which the federal government addresses, but it reflects how far away from the constitution both parties are. It should be state issue, and only a state issue.

quoted for truth