Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...in his/her bid for the White House. I sure could. Despite my ramblings and what some of you may think, I stand for the ending of useless wars, the war on poverty(although if you CAN work, do so), and other "democratic/liberal" issues, all while promoting the sanctity of life and yes I am against the death penalty as well.

I definitely could 100% support a pro life democrat. WHERE ARE THEY AND WHY AREN'T THEY RUNNING FOR OFFICE?! Peace.

No man I couldn't support any one candidate from either party based on ONE issue.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:No man I couldn't support any one candidate from either party based on ONE issue.

No doubt but could you still vote for that candidate if he embodies everything else that you want? Thanks for the reply. I only wish the asswipe above you could mature a little and learn how to have rational discussions instead of the pot shots he so loves to deal out my way. Thanks ursus.

GO CATAMOUNTS!!!

The abortion issue is settled. I wish politicians would focus on taxes, the proper role of government, strengthening the family. reducing our dependence on oil, restructuring our military and eliminating waste in goverment.

Someone like Bob Casey - US Senator from PA is a pro-life Democrat that would merit consideration from me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Casey,_Jr.

Abortion isn't an important enough issue for me to vote for or against someone. So sure I'd support him just like I'd support a Pro-Choice Republican if his views on more important issues reflected mine.

catamount man wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:No man I couldn't support any one candidate from either party based on ONE issue.

No doubt but could you still vote for that candidate if he embodies everything else that you want? Thanks for the reply. I only wish the asswipe above you could mature a little and learn how to have rational discussions instead of the pot shots he so loves to deal out my way. Thanks ursus.

GO CATAMOUNTS!!!

Absolutely I could. I fairly torn between the two parties but it's easier to know when someone says/does the things I think are important no matter which party. I do like Republicans a little more than Democrats in the last 20-25 years because they aren't such a bunch of touchy, feely pussies. I agree with a lot of what D1B says and he probably know this but he's more of a 50's and 60's style Democrat than what the Democratic party is right now. The odd thing is that the Republican party today is more like the old timey Democrats in my book than the Democratic party today seems to be. But to be real honest D1B's post above sounds more like Ron Paul than anything else to me and I'd vote D1B any day if that is his true position on things.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

catamount man wrote:
No doubt but could you still vote for that candidate if he embodies everything else that you want? Thanks for the reply. I only wish the asswipe above you could mature a little and learn how to have rational discussions instead of the pot shots he so loves to deal out my way. Thanks ursus.

GO CATAMOUNTS!!!

Absolutely I could. I fairly torn between the two parties but it's easier to know when someone says/does the things I think are important no matter which party. I do like Republicans a little more than Democrats in the last 20-25 years because they aren't such a bunch of touchy, feely pussies. I agree with a lot of what D1B says and he probably know this but he's more of a 50's and 60's style Democrat than what the Democratic party is right now. The odd thing is that the Republican party today is more like the old timey Democrats in my book than the Democratic party today seems to be. But to be real honest D1B's post above sounds more like Ron Paul than anything else to me and I'd vote D1B any day if that is his true position on things.

Spot on. I cannot believe how the right wing media types constantly trashed Ron Paul when he made more sense than the other conservative candidates. Once McCain got the GOP nod, I knew the WH was Obama's for the taking. Peace!

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

catamount man wrote:
No doubt but could you still vote for that candidate if he embodies everything else that you want? Thanks for the reply. I only wish the asswipe above you could mature a little and learn how to have rational discussions instead of the pot shots he so loves to deal out my way. Thanks ursus.

GO CATAMOUNTS!!!

Absolutely I could. I fairly torn between the two parties but it's easier to know when someone says/does the things I think are important no matter which party. I do like Republicans a little more than Democrats in the last 20-25 years because they aren't such a bunch of touchy, feely pussies. I agree with a lot of what D1B says and he probably know this but he's more of a 50's and 60's style Democrat than what the Democratic party is right now. The odd thing is that the Republican party today is more like the old timey Democrats in my book than the Democratic party today seems to be. But to be real honest D1B's post above sounds more like Ron Paul than anything else to me and I'd vote D1B any day if that is his true position on things.

Amen. It's like I've said before. Most Americans have a streak of libertarianism. They want their personal freedoms. The problem lies in those that think they can determine what personal freedoms should be had, and by whom. That's the issue. If more people would quit getting caught up in the media hyped "primary battles" (that are only hyped to make money for the networks), then America could have a real discussion on issues and elect a true leader. Until that happens we will keep replacing one ideology with a slightly tweaked ideology and call it "change." Which is what happened this year. The few differences between Bush and Obama are really on social issues, both are big spending, big government, more power politicians. That's not change.

Ron Paul was real change, but the media dissed him and thus, so did the mindless voters.

As to the question, I've supported pro-choice Democrats (even though I'm pro-life) because the issues at hand were much more important and they'd never influence a decision on abortion. Granted, none were running for president, or national office.

I wrote in the good Dr. Ron Paul. I sleep well at night even after "wasting" my vote.

catamount man wrote:...in his/her bid for the White House. I sure could. Despite my ramblings and what some of you may think, I stand for the ending of useless wars, the war on poverty(although if you CAN work, do so), and other "democratic/liberal" issues, all while promoting the sanctity of life and yes I am against the death penalty as well.

I definitely could 100% support a pro life democrat. WHERE ARE THEY AND WHY AREN'T THEY RUNNING FOR OFFICE?! Peace.

The question is, if you stand for all those other things as well, why couldn't you support a 100% pro-choice democrat? Or republican, for that matter....

There are pro-life Democrats. A lot of the gains they made in the 2006 midterms were from running conservative Democrats. Bob Casey and Heath Shuler are two that come to mind... though, I'm sure there are more.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Absolutely I could. I fairly torn between the two parties but it's easier to know when someone says/does the things I think are important no matter which party. I do like Republicans a little more than Democrats in the last 20-25 years because they aren't such a bunch of touchy, feely pussies. I agree with a lot of what D1B says and he probably know this but he's more of a 50's and 60's style Democrat than what the Democratic party is right now. The odd thing is that the Republican party today is more like the old timey Democrats in my book than the Democratic party today seems to be. But to be real honest D1B's post above sounds more like Ron Paul than anything else to me and I'd vote D1B any day if that is his true position on things.

Amen. It's like I've said before. Most Americans have a streak of libertarianism. They want their personal freedoms. The problem lies in those that think they can determine what personal freedoms should be had, and by whom. That's the issue. If more people would quit getting caught up in the media hyped "primary battles" (that are only hyped to make money for the networks), then America could have a real discussion on issues and elect a true leader. Until that happens we will keep replacing one ideology with a slightly tweaked ideology and call it "change." Which is what happened this year. The few differences between Bush and Obama are really on social issues, both are big spending, big government, more power politicians. That's not change.

Ron Paul was real change, but the media dissed him and thus, so did the mindless voters.

As to the question, I've supported pro-choice Democrats (even though I'm pro-life) because the issues at hand were much more important and they'd never influence a decision on abortion. Granted, none were running for president, or national office.

Therein lies the crux of the problem. And that is what is so frustrating.....not trying to belittle the issue of abortion, but really, what effect does that issue have on the governing of this country? Seriously? In my younger days, it was more of an issue with me because......I allowed the media to influence my issues instead of focusing on what government should really be doing...Governing. Instead, we have too many people in this country seeking validation of their religious beliefs in a political and judicial arena. Which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but becomes unhealthy for a Republic when seeking that validation trumps all other issues a government should be focusing on for it's electorate.

To answer the original question....no....not because abortion is important to me (I could care less), but i could not support any candidate who feels the government can better determine a medical option for a patient than that patient's own personal physician....

Appaholic wrote:Therein lies the crux of the problem. And that is what is so frustrating.....not trying to belittle the issue of abortion, but really, what effect does that issue have on the governing of this country? Seriously? In my younger days, it was more of an issue with me because......I allowed the media to influence my issues instead of focusing on what government should really be doing...Governing. Instead, we have too many people in this country seeking validation of their religious beliefs in a political and judicial arena. Which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but becomes unhealthy for a Republic when seeking that validation trumps all other issues a government should be focusing on for it's electorate.

To answer the original question....no....not because abortion is important to me (I could care less), but i could not support any candidate who feels the government can better determine a medical option for a patient than that patient's own personal physician....

It's a civil rights issue. Abortion probably won't be what brings this country to its knees, but neither were the legal slavery or segregation issues in their times. And the vast majority of pro-life people don't base it on their religious beliefs. I suppose the issue of gay marriage (which I imagine you have no problem with) should be shoved aside because of the current predicament?

As for the original question, it would depend on what sort of democrat that person was and how egregious the situation of abortion is getting in the country. I'll say this much - I'm more likely to support a pro-life dem than a pro-choice conk. Most of the pro-choice republicans are gun-grabbing, illegal-immigration loving neocons anyways.

Pwns wrote:

Appaholic wrote:Therein lies the crux of the problem. And that is what is so frustrating.....not trying to belittle the issue of abortion, but really, what effect does that issue have on the governing of this country? Seriously? In my younger days, it was more of an issue with me because......I allowed the media to influence my issues instead of focusing on what government should really be doing...Governing. Instead, we have too many people in this country seeking validation of their religious beliefs in a political and judicial arena. Which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but becomes unhealthy for a Republic when seeking that validation trumps all other issues a government should be focusing on for it's electorate.

To answer the original question....no....not because abortion is important to me (I could care less), but i could not support any candidate who feels the government can better determine a medical option for a patient than that patient's own personal physician....

It's a civil rights issue. Abortion probably won't be what brings this country to its knees, but neither were the legal slavery or segregation issues in their times. And the vast majority of pro-life people don't base it on their religious beliefs. I suppose the issue of gay marriage (which I imagine you have no problem with) should be shoved aside because of the current predicament?

Whose civil rights?....if people don't believe in abortions, then don't get one...but don't restrict my right to make a informed medical decision that affects my family and ONLY my family because YOU have a problem with it....MYOB...restricting rights is just another example of this country moving away from the ideal of PEOPLE agreeing to allow the government to govern and closer to the GOVERNMENT allowing the people specific rights....and I'm calling BS of the "pro-life" people NOT basing this upon religion....follow the money/donation trail of these "secular" pro-life groups....

Appaholic wrote:

Pwns wrote:
It's a civil rights issue. Abortion probably won't be what brings this country to its knees, but neither were the legal slavery or segregation issues in their times. And the vast majority of pro-life people don't base it on their religious beliefs. I suppose the issue of gay marriage (which I imagine you have no problem with) should be shoved aside because of the current predicament?

Whose civil rights?....if people don't believe in abortions, then don't get one...but don't restrict my right to make a informed medical decision that affects my family and ONLY my family because YOU have a problem with it....MYOB...restricting rights is just another example of this country moving away from the ideal of PEOPLE agreeing to allow the government to govern and closer to the GOVERNMENT allowing the people specific rights....and I'm calling BS of the "pro-life" people NOT basing this upon religion....follow the money/donation trail of these "secular" pro-life groups....

Great posts. Thank you!

Any government that cannot defend the "least of my brothers", aka the innocent unborn, and even by choice declares their life not worthy to exist, IMO, has forfeited its moral right to govern any other issue.

catamount man wrote:Any government that cannot defend the "least of my brothers", aka the innocent unborn, and even by choice declares their life not worthy to exist, IMO, has forfeited its moral right to govern any other issue.

The government isn't forcing people to get abortions....and you're right, our government isn't fit to govern, but it's due to our inability to elect valid officials due to getting side-tracked by inconsequential issues...

Appaholic wrote:Whose civil rights?....if people don't believe in abortions, then don't get one. restricting rights is just another example of this country moving away from the ideal of PEOPLE agreeing to allow the government to govern and closer to the GOVERNMENT allowing the people specific rights....

One of the duties of government is to protect people from interfering with the rights of other people. And that statement "if people don't believe in abortions, then don't get one" - come on man, that's the moral relatavism fallacy.

Appaholic wrote:and I'm calling BS of the "pro-life" people NOT basing this upon religion....follow the money/donation trail of these "secular" pro-life groups....

What you are saying about the pro-life organizations are true, and that is unfortunate for those of us who are pro-life. Most of the most well-funded anti-abortion groups are religious groups that use religion-infused arguments, but if you talk to a majority of pro-life Americans they do not base it on religious views. I don't think I've read one post on AGS/CS abortion threads where I've read someone justify their views on the Bible. What Bible verse would you cite, anyways?

Appaholic wrote:...but don't restrict my right to make a informed medical decision that affects my family and ONLY my family because YOU have a problem with it

The vast majority of abortions are not medically neccesary.

Pwns wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
The vast majority of abortions are not medically neccesary.

But my body, my decision right? You probably have no problem with getting tattoos or piercings or making yourself look like a tiger do you? Just because you don't want abortions to happen, doesn't make it right. What If I don't want you to kill animals so you can eat meat. It is what I want so it must be correct. People don't need to animal meat to live.

Pwns wrote:

Appaholic wrote:Whose civil rights?....if people don't believe in abortions, then don't get one. restricting rights is just another example of this country moving away from the ideal of PEOPLE agreeing to allow the government to govern and closer to the GOVERNMENT allowing the people specific rights....

One of the duties of government is to protect people from interfering with the rights of other people. And that statement "if people don't believe in abortions, then don't get one" - come on man, that's the moral relatavism fallacy.

Appaholic wrote:and I'm calling BS of the "pro-life" people NOT basing this upon religion....follow the money/donation trail of these "secular" pro-life groups....

What you are saying about the pro-life organizations are true, and that is unfortunate for those of us who are pro-life. Most of the most well-funded anti-abortion groups are religious groups that use religion-infused arguments, but if you talk to a majority of pro-life Americans they do not base it on religious views. I don't think I've read one post on AGS/CS abortion threads where I've read someone justify their views on the Bible. What Bible verse would you cite, anyways?

Appaholic wrote:...but don't restrict my right to make a informed medical decision that affects my family and ONLY my family because YOU have a problem with it

The vast majority of abortions are not medically neccesary.

Sorry, life may begin at conception, but that fetus is no more a citizen of this country than my dog. And you would outlaw abortion for ANY reason? Are you saying there is no valid medical reason for an abortion? Regulate abortions how you want from community-to-community, but to outlaw the procedure in ALL instances is asinine. I don't advocate abortion given my circumstance, there is no good reason for me or my wife to terminate a pregnancy. However, I don't begrudge someone else the right to decide that for themselves given their circumstances.