Hmm. I can think of one.
It's the one that has killed over twenty million unborn infants since it's legalization. Not since slavery has there been a policy in this country responsible for so many dead. And for every year we progress in our scientific abilities, the corrupt argument that claims these unborn are not a) living or b) human becomes all the more apparent for what it is: A policy that assumes women to be so stupid and brutal that they can tell themselves nothing lives within them, even as the clinician uses acids, blades, and vuccuum suction to rend the thing-with-beating-heart-brain-waves-fingerprints-twenty-digits-active-nerve-endings-and-play-habits into pieces.
Need I mention that this party also defends partial-birth abortion as somehow medically necessary? In case you've been avoiding facing truth, the procedure delivers a late-term baby all the way up to but not including its head, them splits open the back of it's rather human-ish skull and back to remove the contents before finishing the delivery. And the Democratic party somehow feels no hypocrisy in charging with murder someone who kills an infant -- including the mother or a doctor -- provided the infant were a mere four more inches into the world.
By somehow tying women's freedoms to a license to kill the unborn, this party has done the greatest violence to untold millions of poets, philosophers, teachers, scientists, soldiers, artists, preachers, and so much more . . . and a full half of the unborn were -- you guessed it -- women themselves.
I'll take a dumbass for president any day --indeed every day -- over someone who endorses butchering the unborn.
Justin L. Blessinger
Date: Monday, October 06, 2003 5:14:40 PM
Subject: Re: OT or OT? politics/Bush, et.al.
Out of curiousity, can you give any specific examples of this
pandering you assert in a general way. I can cite a mass of
specifics about what is awful in Bush--just to start he plans to
appoint to the head of the FDA a man who says the way women
should deal with premenstrual tension is to read the Bible and he
refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women, let alone
wars and leaks and a failed economy. What are the equivalent
"extreme doctrines" on the Democratic side?
Date sent: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 18:05:16 EDT
Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From: Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: OT or OT? Possible Perspectives
To: [log in to unmask]
In a message dated 10/6/2003 5:26:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> ...I could substitute the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson here and repeat my
> above Pat Robertson diatribe, but instead I'll ask, dear listers, do you
> recall when Jesse baptized Mike Tyson a few years ago? My, wasn't that a
> "life transforming" conversion? It only served to transform Mike into as
> the Bible would say, "twofold the child of hell that he was in the first
And thus we come to the problem in the country. As shortsighted
and unacceptable as many of the Republicans' policies and
doctrines are, there is probably not currently a Democratic
candidate for President who would be able to defeat the current
President; it's not that some of their policies aren't a good deal
better; it's that they present themselves and act as the Republicans
do in too many unappealing ways, i.e. name calling and pandering
to special interest groups. And in some doctrines, being too
extreme the other way so that the majority of Americans would be
turned off and, in fact, nervous, and thus the status quo would
appear to be the better option.