Hi, This just as a talley/vote. The other as a forum question.

thank you,

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), November 03, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@bump.bump), November 03, 2004.

so far only one talley from S. in the discussion group: No she would not have changed her mind, Kerry was that far from her position that even if he supported that issue, that the rest of his positions stunk for her.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), November 05, 2004.

Ok, make that a second NO from David. Distrusts Kerry and all that he stands for.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), November 05, 2004.

Not sure which one applies, because I would have voted for Kerry anyway.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 07, 2004.

I'm just curious Anti-Bush. Why are you so "Anti-Bush? Do you not pray for him? Are you for abortion and gay rights? And are you a liberal? (I mean no offense by these questions).

Peace!

-- The Catholic (Noemail@123.com), November 07, 2004.

The title of this thread includes the phrase, "moderate Pro-Life" .

This meaning of this phrase is unclear, and the phrase is probably fatally flawed. One cannot help but guess that a "moderate pro- lifer" is supposedly a person who supports abortion only for one or more (or all) of the "hard cases" (rape, incest, physically/mentally defective fetus). If so, such a person is not "moderate," but just "muddled," because he is blind to the fact that he is saying that some killing of innocents is acceptable. That is dead wrong!

Moreover if a "moderate pro-lifer" is one who supports SOME (relatively few) abortions, then it follows that a good Catholic (i.e., a person who supports NO abortions at all is an "IMMODERATE pro-lifer." What a stupid insult! Doing what is good and just is not "immoderate." Let us not ever fall for the ultra-liberal media's labels.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), November 07, 2004.

because I would have voted for Kerry anyway (Anti-bush)

You "would have" voted for him?

I take it that you did not because you are only 16 or 17 years old? Or is it that you are a convicted felon who is ineligible to vote?

Either way (or even if there is another reason), you really have nothing valid to say at this forum if your mind is so warped (or your conscience is so malformed or dead) as to let you think that you could have voted for Kerry without sinning. We must pray very hard for you, lest you get hardboiled in Hades forever.

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), November 07, 2004.

"I'm just curious Anti-Bush. Why are you so "Anti-Bush? Do you not pray for him? Are you for abortion and gay rights? And are you a liberal? (I mean no offense by these questions)."

Why am I "anti-Bush"? Where do I start?!

Am I pro-abortion? Nope. Read some of my other posts here.

Pro-gay rights? More or less. I certainly don't think they should be discriminated against, if that's what you mean. As for "marriage" or "civil unions", if two gays want to go down to the courthouse and get hitched, fine. They're not getting married in my front yard, so why should I care?

Liberal? I sure am.

"I take it that you did not because you are only 16 or 17 years old? Or is it that you are a convicted felon who is ineligible to vote?"

I'm 16. I've never been convicted of a crime in my life. I don't appreciate your eletist comments about me going to hell for voting Democrat. I hardly beleive that God can look favorably on a man like Bush any more than he could on a man like Kerry. Want to talk about morals? The Bush white house has been just about the most morally bankrupt white house since Nixon's. Perhaps you should examine your own candidate's immoralities before pretending you have some sort of moral high ground.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 08, 2004.

Well then, do you pray for Bush? Our President needs our prayers. I am not a strict Bush fan you know. Neither am I a strict Kerry fan in fact, for Kerry I give him 5% and Bush about 15%. So he's not much higher on the list. Yet his morals are better than Kerry's I believe on Partial Birth Abortion, EMBRYONIC Stem Cell Research, gay rights (even though gays should be welcomed with love from the Church, because just like abortion or theivery, it's just another sin. etc. etc.

Yet I am not going to call myself Anti-Kerry. What kind of a message does that send out if you are a Christian. Unless your not. I pray for Kerry, for he is my brother in Christ since he is a Baptized Catholic. I hope my brother will return to the Church.

God give you peace.

-- The Catholic (Noemail@not.com), November 08, 2004.

Perhaps you should examine your own candidate's immoralities before pretending you have some sort of moral high ground. (anti- Bush)

Other than President Bush's long-past sins of alcoholic intoxication, I am not aware of any "immoralities" that disqualify him from the presidency. Meanwhile every intelligent American can easily see the "immoralities" of Senator Kerry. The President has so much "moral high ground," by comparison to the Senator, that it is as though Bush is on Mt. Everest while Kerry is at the bottom of the Dead Sea. Nothing better can be said for a guy (Kerry) who fails to vote to condemn the infanticide known as "partial-birth abortion."

I guessed right the first time. You are a mere boy of 16. Now we can see how you have been capable of so many extremely ludicrous posts. You are far too immature and ignorant to be taking part in such profound debates as can be found at this forum. You know almost nothing of life yet, and you won't be ready to get involved in chats like this for another 10 to 15 years (if ever).

Let me try another guess. Are you, besides being only 16, also a member of the minority racial group that gave Pres. Bush only 11% of their votes? If so, we would be able further to understand how you are capable of making so many totally warped and "reverse-prejudiced" comments. If you are (as I suspect) a descendant of slaves, then your mind has been poisoned, by the very worst lies of the liberal media and the bigots of the NAA(L)CP, to hate (or at least distrust) every "white" Republican. Never mind that Bush-41 named Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and Bush-43 is considering him to be the next Chief Justice. Never mind that Bush-43 has such high-profilers as Condi Rice, Colin Powell (and his son), etc., working for him. Those GOP "crackers" can't be trusted, right? (Rhetorical question. Don't answer. Be silent for a change. LEARN for a change.)

-- Pellegrino (vaga@bond.com), November 08, 2004.

"Yet his morals are better than Kerry's I believe on Partial Birth Abortion, EMBRYONIC Stem Cell Research, gay rights (even though gays should be welcomed with love from the Church, because just like abortion or theivery, it's just another sin. etc. etc."

Funny thing is I agree with you 100% on those issues. But Bush has done so many immoral things outside of those issues. He sides with big buisiness over the American people. He has reversed the long- standing government policy not to give contracts to companies that move overseas to avoid paying taxes and to get cheap foreign labor. This leads to increased unemployment in the United States, which causes more poverty. He has lost more jobs than any President since Hoover. He has allowed big buisiness to pollute the environment as much as they want. He has started a war on false pretenses and 1,200 soldiers died because of it. He has no qualms about any of this. Why should he? He has grown up in the top thousandth of a percent of the population, and he was raised to believe that he is simply better than everyone else, and that shows in the way he governs.

"I guessed right the first time. You are a mere boy of 16. Now we can see how you have been capable of so many extremely ludicrous posts. You are far too immature and ignorant to be taking part in such profound debates as can be found at this forum. You know almost nothing of life yet, and you won't be ready to get involved in chats like this for another 10 to 15 years (if ever)."

I also guessed right. You are an extremely arrogant person who thinks he can talk down to someone based only on their age without any other knowledge about them. I'm only 16, but I can't vote, so I do whatever else I can. I go to protests, I give money to charities, I volunteer to help with campaigns. And I post on forums like these to try to change people's minds on things and make my opinion heard. Doesn't always work, but I keep trying. You condescending tone is really offensive. You are not better/smarter/more informed than everyone else, so stop pretending to be. Remember, pride is a sin too.

"Let me try another guess. Are you, besides being only 16, also a member of the minority racial group that gave Pres. Bush only 11% of their votes? If so, we would be able further to understand how you are capable of making so many totally warped and "reverse-prejudiced" comments. If you are (as I suspect) a descendant of slaves, then your mind has been poisoned, by the very worst lies of the liberal media and the bigots of the NAA(L)CP, to hate (or at least distrust) every "white" Republican. Never mind that Bush-41 named Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and Bush-43 is considering him to be the next Chief Justice. Never mind that Bush-43 has such high-profilers as Condi Rice, Colin Powell (and his son), etc., working for him. Those GOP "crackers" can't be trusted, right?"

Well yes and no. No, I am not a "member of a minority racial group". I'm white. My parents are white. Everyone in my family, as far as I know, is white. I am the textbook WASP.

On the other hand, I don't trust those GOPS crakcers ;)

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 09, 2004.

Poverty is how our Lord lived! Poverty is how St. Francis of Assisi lived! We are not called on this earth to enjoy ourselves in comfort but to serve Christ. I'm not saying what Bush has done to the economy is right, and as I said I am not a big Bush supporter, yet I believe Childrens lifes and the holacoust they are continuing to go through is more important to stop and condem. Kerry would not have stoped it.

God give you peace!

-- The Catholic (Nomail@none.com), November 10, 2004.

I don't think alot of people actually think about abortions. COUNTLESS CHILDREN are slaughtered everyday like worthless garabage! It's horrible how it's done and especialy how their body parts are sold piece by piece. It's a horrific holacoust that must end! Please!

May the peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

-- Jason (Enchantedfire5@yahoo.com), November 10, 2004.

I go to protests, I give money to charities, I volunteer to help with campaigns. And I post on forums like these to try to change people's minds on things and make my opinion heard.

IOW, just your typical 16 year old liberal activist. :-)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 10, 2004.

Pellegrino, you are spot on about the absurdity of the phrase “moderate pro-life”.

There are only two possibilities:

1. A fetus is not a human being, therefore it’s OK to kill it regardless of how “hard” or “easy” the circumstances are.

2. A fetus IS a human being, therefore no matter how “hard” the circumstances are, they can’t justify deliberately killing him/her.

To argue abortion is OK in some cases but wrong in others is quite illogical. I actually have more intellectual respect for those who argue possibility #1 than for the fence-sitters who say “abortion is OK sometimes”.

OTOH, your patronizing and elitist comments about Anti-Bush’s age and presumed race only reflect badly on yourself. I disagree with much of what A-B says, but his contributions are at least as valuable as most of those who post here. Maybe YOU weren’t able to “get involved in chats” about religion/morality/politics in a meaningful way until you were 31 years old, but A-B and many others obviously can hold their own in these discussions at a much younger age.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 10, 2004.

"IOW, just your typical 16 year old liberal activist. :-) "

Pretty much. What's your point?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 11, 2004.

It's a compliment. Relax. The point is you can probably count the number of 16 year old activists on one hand. There is no typical 16 year old activist. You are unique. Most 16 year olds are playing Xbox or doing some other meaningless activity. Although your views are 180 degrees from mine, at least you can put two sentences together and are interested in important subjects.

Btw, are you the son of college professors, or live in a college town? This has long been a hunch of mine.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), November 11, 2004.

I'd like to point out to Anti-Bush that Pelligrino doesn't speak for me or probably anyone else here. He is the first person I've seen who's tried to stereotype someone based on their age, race, and presumably income level.

Christ welcomed the poor in spirit, the poor, and the just plain despised of society. Stereotyping is NOT a Catholic value, nor is Phariseeism.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2004.

Brian,

I'm the son of a lawyer and a former editor for the Washington Post. I live in the subburbs in northern virginia, just a few minutes outside of DC. Politics has just always been an interest of mine.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 11, 2004.

Actually Frank there is another regular contributor here who, when his arguments fall flat (as they do quite regularly) is in the habit of trying to stereotype his interlocutor’s presumed age, race, and income level. I won’t mention his name for fear of being the recipient of more of his vitriol.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), November 11, 2004.

Anti-bush, if you could substantiate each sentence in this paragraph with anything approaching proof, I'd appreciate it. Quoting Michael Moore or some other fact-challenged hack doesn't count.

I think it may be good for you to just try to find via internet anything approaching a reality check here.

"Funny thing is I agree with you 100% on those issues. But Bush has done so many immoral things outside of those issues. He sides with big buisiness over the American people."

Bush is immoral? How so and according to what ethics or moral code? Bush sides with big business? Like Planned Parenthood? The trial lawyers? Hollywood? When democrats side with special interests like the feminists, gays, and abortionists - all of whom are flush with tax dollars, I don't recall leftists complaining about them betraying the common man. Bush has friends among the oil companies and suddenly he's immoral? Can you say H-Y-P-O-C-R-A-C-Y?

"He has reversed the long- standing government policy not to give contracts to companies that move overseas to avoid paying taxes and to get cheap foreign labor. This leads to increased unemployment in the United States, which causes more poverty."

REALLY? How about checking out the official government numbers and studies done on "outsourcing" rather than the DNC talking points. Try a thought experiment (you know I thought liberals pride themselves with being smart): northern Virginia is in a housing boom - millions of homes are being bought and built. People aren't buying homes on lower-middle class incomes my friend... so obviously SOMETHING positive is going on in the jobs market. Oh and I suppose it's important to let you know that the jobless rate is LOWER now than it was in 1996 when Bill Clinton and the Left crowed about the roaring economy!

"He has lost more jobs than any President since Hoover. He has allowed big buisiness to pollute the environment as much as they want."

Numbers please. I think Carter lost jobs too - as for the environment, please check out the EPA's own statistics: the environment HAS BEEN GETTING BETTER IN ALL CATEGORIES FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS.

"He has started a war on false pretenses and 1,200 soldiers died because of it. He has no qualms about any of this."

Explain false pretenses and how you would know what his qualms are - are you capable of reading people's minds or something?

"Why should he? He has grown up in the top thousandth of a percent of the population, and he was raised to believe that he is simply better than everyone else, and that shows in the way he governs."

No, this is stupid liberal projection. It's not the red states who claim to be morally superior to the blue states based on economic level or income. You are the pot calling the counter-top black.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.