Christians Who Voted for Obama Should Not Lie About Their Support for Abortion

OR,
I do not believe they rose under Bush, and never said that. You have to remember our ultimate goal is the same, to put a stop to the slaughter. On that point we have no difference. We both agree that the present Democratic Party is the agent that pushes the abortion agenda. Where we disagree is the usefulness of the Republican Party in stopping it. I am not your enemy. I just want it stopped, whatever it takes. I perceive the Republican Party as getting in the way of that goal. They either need to get serious and help or get out of the way and allow a new party or group to carry the banner and put a stop to the daily massacre.

 

The whole paragraph details the Republicans roll in this. That does not excuse or condone the primary agent in pushing abortion today being the Democratic Party. Republicans are guilty by association, your party is guilty by the actual promoting of the agenda born in the pits of hell. Whatever the Republicans have done wrong in this whole mess does not do one thing to make the Democrats and whoever supports them one less ounce guilty. The Democratic leadership is no better than the worse mass murderer that ever walked the earth.

So lets get one thing very clear. The Democrats and those who support their warped agenda have nothing in common with me, and you are not going to get away with taking my words about the mistakes of the Republicans to make yourself look better by comparison.

 

Just as legal abortion started in NY, so euthanasia (self-euthansia in the beginning) has already started in Washington and Oregon. At least WA calls it what it is "Assisted Suicide" while Oregon calls it "Death with Dignity".

The reason why abortion is not mentioned in HR3200: Duh, it's already legal.

So when euthanasia is legalized nationally and the "death Panel" is instituted then the two ends of Ezekiel Imanuel's bell curve of those worthy to live by virtue of their social investment and likelihood of survival will become a reality.

Obviously HR3200 does not call it the "Death Panel" but the "Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services".

I believe the president is at least partially mistaken. Ultimately the sickly under 10 (i.e. Spina Bifida) and the incapacitated over 50 (i.e. End Stage Renal Disease) will in effect be given a death sentence in that they will be left on their own (but provided hospice service) to perish or if the family is afluent enough, spend the big bucks to save their loved ones.

Those in the optimum lottery part of the bell curve (20-50 years of age) will receive the highest priority and the greatest amount of $$$ because they have the best chance of ROI.

OK, so we will probably be told there will be no "public option" in the very near future.

Simple: give it another name (non-political of course) then staff it with folks with the Ezekiel Imanuel philosophy and "let it evolve" into whatever is desired (no random chance here).

BTW, Dr. Imanuel's writings are cold and hard with impeccable logic as to how the health care issue could be solved by eugenics. He is without a doubt, a brilliant man. Read his writings, they are chilling. He is Obama's medical advisor soon to be our medical CZAR (probably). Oh, I almost forgot, his brother's name is Rahm Imanuel.

But, after all, we (humanity) are just "matter in motion", the result of a mindless and random series of chance events over billions of years.

Besides each 65 year old hospice patient was once 25 and part of the optimum curve so it's a fair system.

Ah, brave new world!

HankD

 

I thought about your post at work last night, and while I believe my comments are justified, it does tend to start the liberal jaws flapping. What they do is they take negative Republican comments and try to twist the purpose to make their abortion agenda look acceptable. That is not my purpose. I am still pondering whether or not it causes more harm than good. You have to weigh commenting on the mistakes of the Republicans with the way liberals like the above poster warp its purpose. Does it help or harm our goal of stopping the slaughter?

OR, you may have a point. Its a judgement call. The reason I have shifted some to your position is that you want it stopped as much as I do, it is just your solution is more practical and mine idealistic.

What I want out of all of this is for it to stop. I think you are right. We are going to have to work in the existing power frame work we have and be patient. I do not want anything I say to give anyone in the liberal camp any encouragement.

 

We're not just talking about the previous 8 years. Reagan and Bush 1 also said the right things about abortion and then did nothing. That's 20 years of hypocritical Republican administrations that have played the Christian Right for fools.

 

Does it matter whether the unborn child is murdered during a Republican administration or a Democratic administration? Abortion is abortion. The Republicans have lied to you and don't plan on changing the law. Why should they? This is a great campaign issue for them.

 

Regardless of the Republican mistakes, the people who voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, and McCain did so with the hope that abortion would stop. If they were duped, then those who duped them will answer to the Lord. That is opposed to you who voted for candidates who were and are promoting the abortion agenda. That would be Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama.

 

So yer saying the repubs who vote abortion issues are played, just like the dems who vote the anti-war/patriot act/rendition/return jobs to the U.S. issues ?

 

Ok - lets say for the sake of arguement that hypocritical Republican administations played the Christian Right for fools.

What's your excuse?

You voted for the abortionist loving extremist Obama straight up with eyes open. You don't even have the fig leaf of being duped. You wanted what you got and you got what you wanted - more abortions - more funding for abortions - and even more abortions to come.

You should be very pleased at what you have helped to accomplish.

 

Thanks, you said it much better than I tried to two posts above.

 

Richard Nixon actually ran on a platform of stopping the Viet Nam war in 1968. I cast my first presidential vote for him because of that stance. In 1972, it was clear that he lied to get votes and I voted against him. What's the difference between that and Republicans holding out the promise of stopping abortion and then doing almost nothing to achieve that? I wasn't hoodwinked to vote for Nixon the second time because I thought he would end the war. The Christian Right has been hoodwinked into thinking that Republicans would end legal abortion.

 

Ok, I already conceded the point - the Christian Right has been hoodwinked.

Doesn't address the issue of you voting for the abortion lover with eyes wide open.

What is your excuse?

 

Your posts are pathetic. You have no more knowledge of history, government, or politics than a hat rack. Richard Nixon did not run in 1968 on a platform of stopping the war in Vietnam in a certain time period. Below is the Republican platform from 1968.


Vietnam
The Administration's Vietnam policy has failed—militarily, politically, diplomatically, and with relation to our own people.

We condemn the Administration's breach of faith with the American people respecting our heavy involvement in Vietnam. Every citizen bitterly recalls the Democrat campaign oratory of 1964: "We are not about to send American boys 9-10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." The Administration's failure to honor its own words has led millions of Americans to question its credibility.

The entire nation has been profoundly concerned by hastily extemporized, undeclared land wars which embroil massive U.S. armed forces thousands of miles from our shores. It is time to realize that not every international conflict is susceptible of solution by American ground forces.

Militarily, the Administration's piecemeal commitment of men and material has wasted our massive military superiority and frittered away our options. The result has been a prolonged war of attrition. Throughout this period the Administration has been slow in training and equipping South Vietnamese units both for fighting the war and for defending their country after the war is over.

Politically, the Administration has failed to recognize the entirely novel aspects of this war. The overemphasis on its old-style, conventional aspects has blinded the Administration to the fact that the issue is not control of territory but the security and loyalty of the population. The enemy's primary emphasis has been to disrupt orderly government.

The Administration has paid inadequate attention to the political framework on which a successful outcome ultimately depends. Not only has the Administration failed to encourage assumption of responsibility by the Vietnamese, but their sense of responsibility has been in fact undermined by our approach to pacification. An added factor has been a lack of security for the civilian population.

At home, the Administration has failed to share with the people the full implication of our challenge and of our commitments.

To resolve our Vietnam dilemma, America obviously requires new leadership—one capable of thinking and acting anew, not one hostage to the many mistakes of the past. The Republican Party offers such leadership.

We pledge to adopt a strategy relevant to the real problems of the war, concentrating on the security of the population, on developing a greater sense of nation-hood, and on strengthening the local forces. It will be a strategy permitting a progressive de-Americanization of the war, both military and civilian.

We will see to it that our gallant American servicemen are fully supported with the highest quality equipment, and will avoid actions that unnecessarily jeopardize their lives.

We will pursue a course that will enable and induce the South Vietnamese to assume increasing responsibility.

The war has been conducted without a coherent program for peace.

We pledge a program for peace in Vietnam—neither peace at any price nor a camouflaged surrender of legitimate United States or allied interests—but a positive program that will offer a fair and equitable settlement to all, based on the principle of self-determination, our national interests and the cause of long-range world peace.

We will sincerely and vigorously pursue peace negotiations as long as they offer any reasonable prospect for a just peace, We pledge to develop a clear and purposeful negotiating position.

We will return to one of the cardinal principles of the last Republican Administration: that American interests are best served by cooperative multilateral action with our allies rather than by unilateral U.S. action.

Our pride in the nation's armed forces in Southeast Asia and elsewhere in the world is beyond expression.

In all our history none have fought more bravely or more devotedly than our sons in this unwanted war in Vietnam.

They deserve—and they and their loved ones have—our total support, our encouragement, and our prayers.



Nixon promised new leadership to bring the war to an end with honor, not the quit and surrender idea that you would follow.

By the way, since you brought up Vietnam, what did you do to help the nation through that period? What have you ever done to serve this nation? My guess is nothing. You sat around and talked a lot. Richard Nixon made mistakes, but he did improve the situation immensely from Johnson.

I think you are one of these people who define patriotism by shooting off firecrackers, and your mouth, and wave a flag, but never lifted one finger to serve.

 

Vietnam was an abject failure and a huge mistake. Even Robert McNamara conceded such. The hippies were right, Johnson and Nixon were wrong.

 

Hippies are NEVER right.. they are the godless scum of the earth that helped promote the godless left's policies of today by infiltrating the schools and brainwashing the kids with their godless crap!...

Did I mention, the hippies are godless?

 

Tim, with all due respect, you don't even know what a hippie is. :laugh: Where was this hippie cadre that "infiltrated the schools"?

 

Lots of mistakes were made, but the men and women serving over there should have never been disrespected as they were.