This Oughta Be Interesting....

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Scott J:
If Baptist in Richmond votes for politicians knowing that they will do everything in their power to keep abortion legal whereas a vote against that person would facilitate legal protection for that child... then BiR is indeed responsible for helping keep abortion legal and for the abortions that take place because it is legal.

Again, to reiterate what I said:

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
If BiR IS accountable, then please provide the Scriptural justification for such a belief.

Notice that you didn't do that.

You may not like it but you cannot divorce yourself from the responsibility of your vote.

A point worth noting is that the decision in Roe v. Wade is law, and has been for over thirty years. There have been several "pro-life" presidents who have served while this was law. There has been a "pro-life" Congress for practically the entire time period of 1994 to the present day, yet it is still the law of the land.

Yes you do. Each time you vote for a pro-abortion politician, you vote to keep abortion legal. You do so knowing full well that abortions will take place due to your vote.

Again, there has been a pro-life majority in the Legislative branch as well as the executive branch, yet Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land.

So, to usurp your claim and re-direct it at you:
"if you support a politician who claims to be pro-life but hasn't done anything to reverse this as law despite promising to do something, you vote to keep abortion legal. You do so knowing full well that abortions will take place due to your vote."

Whether it is something you like to admit or not, you give sanction to abortion by voting for pro-abortion politicians.

Much like you have given sanction to abortion by voting for candidates who claim to be pro-life but don't do anything to reverse the decision.

Regards,
BiR

 

[SeekingTruth]

In your response to my post, you have accused me of fatuity and of being egregious. Why do you engage in euphuisms? If you think some one is complacent with being stupid or of engaging in outrageously bad behavior, say it openly to insure that no one misunderstands. Or were you fearful that the moderators might detect the personal attack and delete your post. I guess you must believe they are fatuous as well.

If you will read closely my posts as well as others, the conclusions that have been drawn are based on the content of your posts and are the result of carefully applied deductive reasoning. Your posts show a “hands off” attitude toward certain behaviors whereby the reader can easily come to the conclusion that while you may not support a behavior, you do not oppose it.

You attempt to obfuscate your position by declaring that if you do not specifically state a support of that position, you cannot be shown to support that position. Instead of accepting the logical conclusions of others on this board which are based on deductive analysis of your posts, you counter by tring to show that these conclusions are at best paralogisms and possibly even deliberate misstatements of your positions.

 

[Enoch]

South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Pediatricians Will Flourish!!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
If Baptist in Richmond votes for politicians knowing that they will do everything in their power to keep abortion legal whereas a vote against that person would facilitate legal protection for that child... then BiR is indeed responsible for helping keep abortion legal and for the abortions that take place because it is legal.

Again, to reiterate what I said:

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
If BiR IS accountable, then please provide the Scriptural justification for such a belief.

Notice that you didn't do that.</font>[/QUOTE] Romans 1.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

According to Roberton's, "without natural affection" relates directly to not having appropriate love for one's "kindred"... ie. their children.

Further, "have pleasure" means to "consent with them". That is EXACTLY what a person does when they vote for a politician that works to preserve the legalized, unjustified murder of the unborn.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You may not like it but you cannot divorce yourself from the responsibility of your vote.

A point worth noting is that the decision in Roe v. Wade is law, and has been for over thirty years. There have been several "pro-life" presidents who have served while this was law. There has been a "pro-life" Congress for practically the entire time period of 1994 to the present day, yet it is still the law of the land.</font>[/QUOTE] A point worth noting?... Perhaps you mean a point enabling evasion.

Notably your man, Clinton, even vetoed the partial birth abortion ban. During the time you mentioned, there were not the 60 pro-life Senators needed to over-ride vetoes much less the 2/3's needed to pass a Constitutional amendment.

But the main point is that the politicians aren't going to lead this change. It will take the refusal of people like you to vote for pro-abortion candidates of any party before it changes.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes you do. Each time you vote for a pro-abortion politician, you vote to keep abortion legal. You do so knowing full well that abortions will take place due to your vote.

Again, there has been a pro-life majority in the Legislative branch as well as the executive branch, yet Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land.

So, to usurp your claim and re-direct it at you:
"if you support a politician who claims to be pro-life but hasn't done anything to reverse this as law despite promising to do something, you vote to keep abortion legal. You do so knowing full well that abortions will take place due to your vote."</font>[/QUOTE] Well ummm... obviously not considering the topic of this thread. Without a pro-life President and Congress properly timed, you don't see this shift in the Supreme Court... meaning SD would not have been emboldened to challenge R v W.

It will take either a consitutitional amendment or an act by the Supreme Court to reverse Roe. Then it will be up to the people of the states to demand that their legislatures properly define "life" to include the unborn... But really that will come down more to people like you. People who aren't pro-abortion but won't demand that the politicians they vote for are pro-life... making you de facto pro-abortion.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Whether it is something you like to admit or not, you give sanction to abortion by voting for pro-abortion politicians.

Much like you have given sanction to abortion by voting for candidates who claim to be pro-life but don't do anything to reverse the decision.

</font>[/QUOTE]Assumes that they aren't... which is obviously untrue.

Are they doing all I would desire? No. Are they probably doing as much as they can get away with under our system? Probably.

We didn't reach a point where the ridiculous Roe v Wade ruling was made overnight. The solution will require a change of heart and behavior on the part of voters.

People like you and pro-life black voters have the most power to actually change the law. All it would take is a credible threat to the Dems that about 30% of their base is going to take a walk unless pro-lifers become welcome in the party again. As long as they get your vote anyway, you might as well be working for Planned Parenthood as far as the elites of the Democratic Party are concerned.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Pediatricians Will Flourish!!

Hopefully, we will see a revival of the idea that people are actually RESPONSIBLE for the moral decisions they make. Roe v Wade follows the line of liberal reasoning pretty well- It dictates that if a preferred group exercises a preferred choice of behavior then someone else should pay the consequences when Natural Law as imposed by the Creator judges against that behavior.

Nature as God designed it rules against sloth and immoral behavior. Liberals think it is unjust for the industrious not to share with those who make decisions that result directly in their own poverty.

Don't like the consequences of irresponsible sexual activity- don't own up... kill the baby.

Burn yourself out on drugs (as my sister-in-law did)- draw social security at 36.

Contract HIV while in the Navy through homosexual conduct (as a cousin did)- live off of the VA and social security for the rest of your life.

Democrats have become the party that wants the responsible to alleviate the irresponsible of undesirable consequences... that fits very much with abortion.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Johnv:
... I'm flatly againt elective abortions, but have no problem with abortions being permitted for life and health exceptions. ...

Does the Bible make an exception for "life and health exceptions" for the benefit of the mother over the unborn child?

 

[elijah_lives]

I can't say it any better than you did, ScottJ (is it a "J" or a "]"? Forgive my ignorance...)

I was especially trying to emphasize the scripture you expound, that makes us responsible for our votes:

Romans 1:32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

We may not have the votes to override a filibuster in the Senate, or to (at this time) pass a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions, but that doesn't eliminate our responsibility, as God-fearing Christians, to oppose this abomination with all of our might.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
In your response to my post, you have accused me of fatuity and of being egregious. Why do you engage in euphuisms?

Why, thanks for that! More on this later.

If you think some one is complacent with being stupid or of engaging in outrageously bad behavior, say it openly to insure that no one misunderstands. Or were you fearful that the moderators might detect the personal attack and delete your post. I guess you must believe they are fatuous as well.

Perhaps you didn't read my posts, or quite possibly you did not comprehend them. My responses were crafted in a manner where I actually demonstrated what you did. In my last post to you, I addressed the quotes directly. Rather than address my points (a point worth noting is that you did not address a single point I made), you have made a personal attack with your claim that I am engaging in euphuistic behavior. How convenient for you.

If you will read closely my posts as well as others, the conclusions that have been drawn are based on the content of your posts and are the result of carefully applied deductive reasoning.

I shall state the obvious: your claim is simply not true. Your deductive reasoning is based upon your assessment of what I didn't write. Your claim of having "carefully applied deductive reasoning" is not only egregious, it is laughable. In some cases, I didn't engage in any discussion of the topic, and you know it.

Your posts show a “hands off” attitude toward certain behaviors whereby the reader can easily come to the conclusion that while you may not support a behavior, you do not oppose it.

This is intellectual dishonesty. In a few instances I did not even offer a comment about the subject at all, and you have somehow drawn a conclusion based on no discussion of the topic. In other words, you pulled that assessment out of thin air.
The most brazen example of this is the observation with respect to my supposed opinion regarding rape. To reiterate what I have said before, I have not discussed this topic at all, yet you seemingly possess some gift of insight to make a conclusion about my opinion based upon no discussion on my part of any kind. That is a clear example of abject fatuity.

You attempt to obfuscate your position by declaring that if you do not specifically state a support of that position, you cannot be shown to support that position. Instead of accepting the logical conclusions of others on this board which are based on deductive analysis of your posts, you counter by tring to show that these conclusions are at best paralogisms and possibly even deliberate misstatements of your positions.

This is nonsense. I have never attempted to "obfuscate" my position. Anyone who reads what I have written knows that I have stated that I am pro-life. As a matter of fact, I have written this more than once. Yet by utilizing "deductive analysis," you have decided that I am not giving you a position based upon topics I have not discussed. Everybody knows that something not discussed does not constitute a position. As I have already stated that I am pro-life, to suggest otherwise without any tangible evidence to the contrary is bearing false witness.

Shame on you, SeekingTruth.

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

[SeekingTruth]

BiR, debating with you is akin to trying to catch a greased pig. You bob and weave with the grace and ability of Mohammed Ali. You do not respond to specific questions when they are asked. Rather you change the subject or ignore the question altogether. I have never stated nor implied you were not pro-life. Your posts demonstrate that you will not oppose abortion in directly or indirectly, for example voting against pro-abortion candidates.

Your repeated claims that because you do not address an issue does not imply anything about your position does not hold water. As standingfirminChrist stated:

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
No decision is still a decision

On Feb 27, 9:49PM, you state:
"This of course is intellectual dishonesty. You have reproduced my comments for me again. Although it is glaringly obvious, notice that I did not address rape in either point. To suggest that I somehow did not "state that would not oppose such an act legalizing rape" is abject fatuity, nothing more (Emphasis added.). I didn't address the topic of rape at all in this reply. I didn't discuss it at all. In other words, I did not address the topic of rape in either reply that you have so graciously reproduced in this reply to me." You also state: "Your claim that I " would not publicly oppose rape" is presumptive to the point of being egregious ".(Emphasis added.)


You have accused me of intellectual dishonesty, of being fatuous (defined as:self-satisfied unintelligence: a lack of intelligence or thought combined with complacency), and being reprehensible. In one post you called me a fool, a liar and declared me a reprehensible person . Consequently, any further posts from you addressing me will be given the attention they deserve. NONE. I have no doubt you will attempt to spin your way clear of these statements. You made them and you owe this board an apology.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
BiR, debating with you is akin to trying to catch a greased pig. You bob and weave with the grace and ability of Mohammed Ali.

Now that was hilarious.

You do not respond to specific questions when they are asked. Rather you change the subject or ignore the question altogether.

That isn't exactly true, is it?

Let's recap:

You first posed a question to me on February 24th @ 9:04PM;
I replied at 9:05 PM (one minute later).

You then referred to me indirectly on February 25th @ 5:43 PM, noting that "is sad to see professing Christians state, as BiR has done at least indirectly, that since only those who commit an act ansswer to it, then everything should be legal;"
I responded to that charge on February 26th @ 9:19 PM (delay in replying as I was travelling), noting that I never made such a claim directly or indirectly.

You then replied to me on February 27th @ 12:42 AM, addressing comments I made to others;
I replied to you on February 28th @ 12:49 AM.

You then made a post on February 28th @ 4:07 PM (not addressing any of the points I made earlier);
I replied to you on February 28th @ 11:21 PM.

I have never stated nor implied you were not pro-life. Your posts demonstrate that you will not oppose abortion in directly or indirectly, for example voting against pro-abortion candidates.

No, that is not correct. I have not even addressed the issue of my voting for pro-life candidates, and nobody has ever posed any questions to me concerning this subject. This is a clear example of the fallacy in your "carefully applied deductive reasoning." I haven't addressed my voting record at all. Anyone who reads my posts can see this for themselves.

Your repeated claims that because you do not address an issue does not imply anything about your position does not hold water.

You are still having trouble grasping this concept. If I have not addressed an issue, then you cannot use "carefully applied deductive reasoning" to ascertain my particular stance on an issue I have not addressed. This is an anonymous forum. You don't know me, and I don't know you. For you to simply deduce my opinions based solely upon my lack of comments regarding a particular topic/thought/idea is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.

You have accused me of intellectual dishonesty, of being fatuous (defined as:self-satisfied unintelligence: a lack of intelligence or thought combined with complacency), and being reprehensible.

In each case, I supported my claims with your quotes. By the way, the word was "fatuity" - defined as utter foolishness. A point worth noting is that the word was applied to a claim that was made, not to you as a person. That was patently obvious.

In one post you called me a fool, a liar and declared me a reprehensible person .

Please show me where I made this statement. When did I directly refer to you as a "fool," a "liar," or "a reprehensible person?"

Consequently, any further posts from you addressing me will be given the attention they deserve. NONE. I have no doubt you will attempt to spin your way clear of these statements. You made them and you owe this board an apology.

Again, shame on you. In every single case, I have reproduced your comments and addressed them. Hey: you have claimed to have utilized "carefully applied deductive reasoning" and made claims about topics I didn't discuss. That doesn't require "spin."

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

[elijah_lives]

All of this squabbling does us no credit as Christians. We spend more time attacking and defending each other, than we do discussing the issues...

 

[JGrubbs]

Bush disagrees with South Dakota abortion ban

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Dragoon68:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
... I'm flatly againt elective abortions, but have no problem with abortions being permitted for life and health exceptions. ...

Does the Bible make an exception for "life and health exceptions" for the benefit of the mother over the unborn child? </font>[/QUOTE]To the best of my knowledge it makes no such exception. Abortion is always wrong.

 

[Scott J]

Oh btw, BiR, You challenged me to show scripture. I showed you scripture... and didn't even expound to the full extent. I didn't even point out that someone who votes for a pro-abortion politician is giving consent to both evasion of the God ordained responsibility facing fornicators and murderers.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Oh btw, BiR, You challenged me to show scripture. I showed you scripture... and didn't even expound to the full extent.

My apologies, as I did not see your reply.

You only quoted Verses 28-32. I am currently on a layover in Tampa International Airport, so more on that to follow.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
A point worth noting is that the decision in Roe v. Wade is law, and has been for over thirty years. There have been several "pro-life" presidents who have served while this was law. There has been a "pro-life" Congress for practically the entire time period of 1994 to the present day, yet it is still the law of the land.

A point worth noting?... Perhaps you mean a point enabling evasion.</font>[/QUOTE]No, actually, you are evading that one. This is true regardless of whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.

I do not feel responsible for every single decision that is made by the candidates, especially given the fact that I have voted for both parties.

Notably your man, Clinton, even vetoed the partial birth abortion ban.

WHAT?
How is former President Clinton my “man?” Where in the world did you ascertain that I am somehow a fan of Clinton? I have read all of my posts in this discussion, and I have never mentioned the former President. Please refrain from assigning thoughts/beliefs/ideas to me that I have never offered or posted to this forum.

the time you mentioned, there were not the 60 pro-life Senators needed to over-ride vetoes much less the 2/3's needed to pass a Constitutional amendment.

President Bush signed it, and it was overturned by the Court. Has Congress even discussed working on this? Is it on the agenda this session?

But the main point is that the politicians aren't going to lead this change. It will take the refusal of people like you to vote for pro-abortion candidates of any party before it changes.

The GOP will not overturn Roe v. Wade. More on this later.

Well ummm... obviously not considering the topic of this thread. Without a pro-life President and Congress properly timed, you don't see this shift in the Supreme Court... meaning SD would not have been emboldened to challenge R v W.

Not necessarily. This will most likely be overturned as it violates the decision in Roe v. Wade.

It will take either a consitutitional amendment or an act by the Supreme Court to reverse Roe. Then it will be up to the people of the states to demand that their legislatures properly define "life" to include the unborn... But really that will come down more to people like you. People who aren't pro-abortion but won't demand that the politicians they vote for are pro-life... making you de facto pro-abortion.

This is a really bizarre assertion, ScottJ. The Republicans are not going to work to reverse the decision handed down in Roe v. Wade. The rationale is precisely the same as what Rush Limbaugh claims about Jesse Jackson. The minute that Roe v. Wade is overturned, the GOP has lost one of its most effective rallying cries. I have heard several people claim on television that “the Christian Right” was responsible for the strong showing for GOP in the 2004 election. Just look at what is said in this story at USA Today:

From [USAToday.com:
Supporters say an anonymous donor has pledged to provide South Dakota with $1 million to help defend the law in court.

[Link to the Story]

There is already money coming in to defend a law that hasn't even been overturned yet. If they can receive money already, then this is an issue that can potentially bring in millions more.

Assumes that they aren't... which is obviously untrue.

Are they doing all I would desire? No. Are they probably doing as much as they can get away with under our system? Probably.

We didn't reach a point where the ridiculous Roe v Wade ruling was made overnight. The solution will require a change of heart and behavior on the part of voters.

I guess so, as it has been over thirty years since the decision was handed down by the Supreme Court. That was my point in the comments you reproduced regarding the makeup of Congress and the White House in the years that have followed the decision.

People like you and pro-life black voters have the most power to actually change the law. All it would take is a credible threat to the Dems that about 30% of their base is going to take a walk unless pro-lifers become welcome in the party again. As long as they get your vote anyway, you might as well be working for Planned Parenthood as far as the elites of the Democratic Party are concerned.

You are working under the fallacious assumption that I am a Democrat. Be careful: this is the characteristic exhibited by the “dittoheads:” that all liberals are Democrats (although I typically hear the same bizarre assumption from the Hannity listeners as well). I have not stated that I am a Democrat. Again, please refrain from assigning thoughts/beliefs/ideas to me that I have never offered or posted to this forum.

Additonally, you are also assuming that the rest of us are "one-issue voters." If the GOP wants to court the African-American community, then there are a whole host of issues that would have to be addressed. That is, if they are making a genuine effort to court them.

I didn't even point out that someone who votes for a pro-abortion politician is giving consent to both evasion of the God ordained responsibility facing fornicators and murderers.

HUH?
Where in the world did you deduce this?
If that is true, then those who would vote for someone who has promised to reverse Roe v. Wade (and has done nothing) will share equally in that fate. After all, those who have voted this manner have generated the same results.

More to follow (boarding a plane).

Hope you are doing well,
BiR

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

[Link to story at MSNBC.com]

Like I said in the initial post, this oughta be interesting.....

Regards,
BiR

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A point worth noting is that the decision in Roe v. Wade is law, and has been for over thirty years. There have been several "pro-life" presidents who have served while this was law. There has been a "pro-life" Congress for practically the entire time period of 1994 to the present day, yet it is still the law of the land.

A point worth noting?... Perhaps you mean a point enabling evasion.</font>[/QUOTE]No, actually, you are evading that one. This is true regardless of whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.[/quote][/qb] I acknowledge that Congress has been controlled by Republicans for 12 years- six of which had an opposition, pro-abortion president who even vetoed a ban on partial birth abortion. A man who also appointed a strongly pro-abortion SC Justice.

I do not feel responsible for every single decision that is made by the candidates, especially given the fact that I have voted for both parties.

I am not asking you to. There are a great number of issues that aren't black and white. There are issues where legitimate cases can be made on both sides by Christians and people genuinely concerned about the nation... though not equally valid cases.

Abortion simply doesn't fit into that category. Morally, it is a Christian duty to stand against evil. But perhaps as important, abortion denies the foundational right... the right upon which every other right necessarily depends- The right to live and have that right protected by government.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Notably your man, Clinton, even vetoed the partial birth abortion ban.

WHAT?
How is former President Clinton my “man?” Where in the world did you ascertain that I am somehow a fan of Clinton? I have read all of my posts in this discussion, and I have never mentioned the former President. Please refrain from assigning thoughts/beliefs/ideas to me that I have never offered or posted to this forum. </font>[/QUOTE] So are you denying that you supported him? Approve(d) of him?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />the time you mentioned, there were not the 60 pro-life Senators needed to over-ride vetoes much less the 2/3's needed to pass a Constitutional amendment.

President Bush signed it, and it was overturned by the Court. Has Congress even discussed working on this? Is it on the agenda this session?</font>[/QUOTE] The answer is in the citation you responded to.

The courts have (wrongly) declared it unconstitutional. A simple law won't overcome that unless the court reverses itself.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But the main point is that the politicians aren't going to lead this change. It will take the refusal of people like you to vote for pro-abortion candidates of any party before it changes.

The GOP will not overturn Roe v. Wade. More on this later.</font>[/QUOTE] You don't know that of course... but I imagine it makes a convenient excuse.

We can only vote for what they say they will do and then hold them accountable for it. We can't assume that they are lying before they even have power. I see movement on the issue directly resulting from those votes for Republicans.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well ummm... obviously not considering the topic of this thread. Without a pro-life President and Congress properly timed, you don't see this shift in the Supreme Court... meaning SD would not have been emboldened to challenge R v W.

Not necessarily. This will most likely be overturned as it violates the decision in Roe v. Wade. </font>[/QUOTE] And that is probably the design all along. These states will force it back to the court to reconsider.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It will take either a consitutitional amendment or an act by the Supreme Court to reverse Roe. Then it will be up to the people of the states to demand that their legislatures properly define "life" to include the unborn... But really that will come down more to people like you. People who aren't pro-abortion but won't demand that the politicians they vote for are pro-life... making you de facto pro-abortion.

This is a really bizarre assertion, ScottJ. The Republicans are not going to work to reverse the decision handed down in Roe v. Wade. The rationale is precisely the same as what Rush Limbaugh claims about Jesse Jackson. The minute that Roe v. Wade is overturned, the GOP has lost one of its most effective rallying cries.</font>[/QUOTE] Au contrare mon frere.

Many in the GOP elite would very much like for this issue to go away. Further, comparing a long time con artist like Jackson to people who have demonstrably consistent convictions concerning abortion is off base.

Further, conservatives have in general shown much less concern about this type of thing than relativistic liberals (Moynihan was perhaps the last liberal not predominately ruled by relativism/pragmatism).

Witness tax cuts. It would have been politically advantageous to have tax cuts as an issue. Instead, it is a net loser for them since the Dems will deliver the "tax cuts for the wealthy" propaganda with great effectiveness... though it is dishonest to the core. It is hard to cut taxes without giving 50% to those who pay 90% of all taxes.

I have heard several people claim on television that “the Christian Right” was responsible for the strong showing for GOP in the 2004 election. Just look at what is said in this story at USA Today:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />From [USAToday.com:
Supporters say an anonymous donor has pledged to provide South Dakota with $1 million to help defend the law in court.

[Link to the Story]

There is already money coming in to defend a law that hasn't even been overturned yet. If they can receive money already, then this is an issue that can potentially bring in millions more.</font>[/QUOTE] Good grief... What convoluted logic!

Now it is wrong to recognize that liberals will take SD to court over this law and prepare for that contingency? That's ridiculous BiR.

Like it or not, liberals have done most of their damage by manipulating the judiciary. Conservatives are just lately getting into that game... but it does cost money to play effectively.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />People like you and pro-life black voters have the most power to actually change the law. All it would take is a credible threat to the Dems that about 30% of their base is going to take a walk unless pro-lifers become welcome in the party again. As long as they get your vote anyway, you might as well be working for Planned Parenthood as far as the elites of the Democratic Party are concerned.

You are working under the fallacious assumption that I am a Democrat. Be careful: this is the characteristic exhibited by the “dittoheads:” </font>[/QUOTE] I am not a big Limbaugh fan. I don't trust him for numerous reasons... one of which is that he openly declares that he is an entertainer meaning that he might just be selling a product.

that all liberals are Democrats (although I typically hear the same bizarre assumption from the Hannity listeners as well). I have not stated that I am a Democrat.

I don't think I did either or did I? It doesn't matter any way. What matters is that you have taken the position that it is OK to vote for pro-abortion candidates... which are mostly Democrats. All this other stuff posted by you amounts to little more than diversion.

Again, please refrain from assigning thoughts/beliefs/ideas to me that I have never offered or posted to this forum.

Er, OK. Please refrain from avoiding the main point by accentuating the mole hills.

You are arguing a position that would largely amount to a justification for supporting Democratic/liberal politicians. Parsing words doesn't change the essence of that nor my disagreement with you.

Additonally, you are also assuming that the rest of us are "one-issue voters."

Nope.

If the GOP wants to court the African-American community, then there are a whole host of issues that would have to be addressed. That is, if they are making a genuine effort to court them.

I frankly would rather the parties attempt to stand for a consistent, rational, moral, "rule of law", libertarian leaning platform then let the chips fall where they may with voters of whatever color.

Shamefully, black voters are much more likely to see big gov't as the answer to many problems... that gov't action has demonstrably and persistently made worse. Few if any of the liberal social engineering programs have fulfilled the promises made by their creators.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I didn't even point out that someone who votes for a pro-abortion politician is giving consent to both evasion of the God ordained responsibility facing fornicators and murderers.

HUH?
Where in the world did you deduce this?</font>[/QUOTE] Well, because abortion's primary purpose is to avoid the responsibility of the consequences of the lack of sexual control by taking the baby's life.

When you vote for someone who will vote to enable this... you are voting to enable it yourself.

If that is true, then those who would vote for someone who has promised to reverse Roe v. Wade (and has done nothing) will share equally in that fate.

Only if they have done nothing... which obviously isn't the case. Two states are already challenging Roe v Wade due to Republican control and actions in Washington... and Missouri may very well follow suit soon.

After all, those who have voted this manner have generated the same results.

That is possibly the most perverse logic I have seen from you.

You want to justify voting for those who will actively work to keep abortion legal by pointing out that those who say they oppose it haven't made as much progress as you apparently think they should have? That is obtuse.

Hope you are doing well,
BiR

Same to you actually.

This gets a little heated and maybe too personal but I am sincerely interested in discerning and promoting the Truth... and believe you are as well.