or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › A question for Bush supporters only
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A question for Bush supporters only - Page 3

post #41 of 62
Argh, this is supposed to be for Bush supporters only! Personally, I'm interested in seeing what they have to say, when unimpeded by constant debate from the rest of us. Please lay off, non-Bush folks!
post #42 of 62
Quote:
Got it now?
Kinda rude & condescending. your reply to my post was just fine until that last statement.

I am grown woman, please dont talk to me in a way you most certainly wouldnt speak to your own child. I am 37, not 4.
post #43 of 62
Interesting thread. I think you should all continue posting as this place is even more interesting with diversity. Not that we are all alike or anything...

In addition, NM must get exhausted....soooo stick around and help her out once in a while ey?

Thanks

:ignore Its been tough to keep my big mouth shut
post #44 of 62
Quote:
Originally posted by Els' 3 Ones

I questioned the use of two terms. 1) referring to a man who has executed 1000s of innocents as "pro-life"

Got it now?


Els' --

I would like to now question your use of wording......i'd be interested to see where you get the idea that Bush has executed 1000s of innocents.



Iraqi soldiers are not innocents, they are "casualties of war." Besides which, I do not think that there were 1000s killed during the conflict in Iraq. And.....execution is far different that being killed in action.

One more comment, while i am at it.....don't you think that Sadaam has himself killed or contributed to the death of far more Iraqis than were killed by American troops during the war???
post #45 of 62
I believe close to 4,000 "casualties of war" have been reported in Afghanistan. Many of them women, children, elderly, including an entire village, the guardian reported more like 10-20,000.

I can't find the article run by AP about 2 weeks ago that reported Iraqi civilian "casualties of war", but you may want to try looking at www.iraqbodycount.net, which reports similar numbers as what AP ran.
post #46 of 62
in refernce to the AP report:

"Using a rigorous methodology, seven AP reporters in Iraq over a period of five weeks reviewed dozens of documents from 60 of Iraq's 124 hospitals, covering the period from March 20, the war's beginning, to April 20, when the fighting abated. The tally: 3,240 civilians died throughout the country, with 1,896 of those in Baghdad alone. But AP referred to these totals as "still fragmentary" with the likely figure "significantly" higher. "

from http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpu...ent_id=1920081
post #47 of 62
El's, I think that a man who is privvy to the MOST international information, from sources like the CIA, is much more capable of making a decision whether the colateral damage of lives lost in a war is worth the outcome of winning the war on terror, than someone like any of us who only know what we are told.

Unless you have some kind of security clearance into the oval office...I don't think you are in a possition to be questioning the strategies that our Commander in Chief is using to fight this dangerous war. I think it would be much more appreciated if you just sat back and enjoyed the freedom that you are provided BECAUSE of the fight on this war.

And, whether you voted for him or not, and whether you agree with him or not, I do think that the most powerful man in the world deserves a little more respect than to be called "Shrubs." I didn't vote for him, but he is my President and I will stand behind him and respect him...until I cast my next vote anyway.
post #48 of 62
safemommy --



Well stated!!

ITA!!
post #49 of 62
FTR........(again)..........and I'm only responding on this thread bcuz I was directly posted to:

I am not questioning or debating whether the pResident warmonger's decision was right or wrong. I was questioning the use of the term "pro-life" to describe him. That he even debates the amount of collateral damage (ie: deaths to innocents) really makes me wonder how he can be referred to as such. Even the press does this - I find it truly amazing how we are spoon fed sound bite terms and injest them w/o thought. He is anti-abortion, not pro-life.

Please don't twist my words into something other than what I have repeatedly said......................



El
post #50 of 62
Quote:
Originally posted by Safemommy
making a decision whether the colateral damage of lives lost in a war
IMHO, once you are able to refer to a human life being lost as "colateral damage", then it is much easier to continue in that vein.

Why is it that when our "own" children, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc, etc, are MURDERED, they are not referred to as COLATERAL DAMAGE?????

(As I recall, the defintion of colateral reads something like this: either it is money or property to secure a debt, or of secondary importance. - an interesting way to refer to dead people.)
post #51 of 62
As stated by dictionary.com:

pro-life (pr-lf)
adj.
Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.

To my knowledge, we are not losing any embryos or fetuses because we are fighting in the middle east.

As for colateral damage -- I am sure that Bush prays for our soldiers everyday and wants to do everything possible to minimize casualties. However, based on the information he has, he feels that the loss of life in the war would be less than the loss of life because of terrorism or Saddam Hussein. That is what is meant by colateral damage. I don't think he minimizes the value of those lives.

Which is the BIGGEST reason I support Bush right now....I think we need to fight this war on terror and fight it HARD. I think he is doing a good job with that.
post #52 of 62
Quote:
Originally posted by Safemommy
As stated by dictionary.com:

pro-life (pr-lf)
adj.
Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.

.
Yep, that's what my dictionary says, also.

Being pro-life is the MAIN reason I support Bush. IMO, being pro-life is the corner stone for morality. To be a good leader, IMO, one must be moral. Thus, IMO, pro-life=a good leader..

Of course, this is my theory. I know there is always going to be the exception (although, IMO, I don't think Bush is the exception).

I would rather vote for the worst Republican rather than a democrat. Yes, I vote along party lines. I just don't believe that the dems take the right approach to solving this nations problems.

Republicans want clean air, water, good schools for our children, care for our elderly, etc. It's the *WAY* the republicans go about these things is what makes all the difference to me. I believe the republicans put the power, thus the responsibility, in the hands of the people. Democrats want the power to be in the government. This is why I like Bush. Smaller government.

I like Bush because I believe he has the best interests of the nation at heart. I think he puts them above an agenda. I believe he loves his country.

I support Bush because he's a Christian.

As for energy, I am for drilling in Alaska. We just need to be careful and smart. There is no reason we should be paying the prices we are paying for fuel. There is no reason we should be relying on OPEC the way we do. If we started supplying our own fuel, thus being more self-reliant, it would force OPEC to reduce the amount they are gouging for their oil.

As for environment, sorry, I need to research more. I will not comment on that.

These are my *opinions*. I will not debate nor justify them.

I hope this adds some insite to where conservatives stand on some issues.
post #53 of 62
Quote:
Originally posted by Safemommy
To my knowledge, we are not losing any embryos or fetuses because we are fighting in the middle east.
Only the ones lost by the pregnant mommies who have become colateral damage.
post #54 of 62
Thread Starter 
Just wanted to say, thanks for responding to this thread. I haven't been saying much (except to bark at my fellow antis!) but have been reading with great interest.
post #55 of 62
Quote:
Originally posted by zealsmom
Only the ones lost by the pregnant mommies who have become colateral damage.
Oh Puleeeze! Now you are implying that a pro-life person should hold a fetus's life HIGHER than an already born human's life.

A fetus and a born human are equal in a pro-lifer's views. I don't expect to NEVER fight a war in order to protect our freedoms and keep us safe from these American-hating terrorists, on the off chance a pregnant woman gets in the line of fire and loses her baby!!

That is NOT included in the definition of pro-life, and while ANY life lost is a tragedy, no one is intetionally targeting and killing pregnant women and her fetuses.
post #56 of 62
Question:

Quote:
Safemommy said~A fetus and a born human are equal in a pro-lifer's views.
How then does it become ok to abort the fetus of a rape/incest victim? And, if it's 'not' ok, then is Bush still a 'pro-lifer'...?

Edited to correct grammar/spelling.

Awaiting an answer as I am curious.

Thanks!
post #57 of 62
Quote:
Republicans want clean air, water, good schools for our children, care for our elderly,
Interesting. I have never heard that before, also interesting that Republicans want to achieve these things with a 'smaller government'.

In fact, I would love some proof of all this, maybe bills that were passed, to show that- because all the info I have shows the exact opposite.
Too bad, you said these are simply your opinions, and you will not debate nor justify them, as I am sure they are opinions based on facts. And I'd really love to see those facts.


Zealsmom: Middle-Eastern embryos and fetuses are just not as important as those back home!How can you not get that!Murdering them is totally coherent with being pro-life !

What the dictionary says is what the pro-life movement (anti-choice) labels itself. One can use or not use that term in relation to people who oppose a woman's choice but support 'frying' people and bombing countries unprovoked.
post #58 of 62
Quote:
Originally posted by Ilaria
Interesting. I have never heard that before, also interesting that Republicans want to achieve these things with a 'smaller government'.
Talk of small government is just 'talk'. I'll stop there for fear of sparking debate.

See here

Quote:
Republicans want clean air, water, good schools for our children, care for our elderly,
How do you see these goals achieved when the Gov keeps de-regulating and taking $$ from schools, the elderly and enviromental causes?

What is to be done with families who cant find work because Bush is losing over 75,000 jobs per month?

Hope I don't ask too many questions gang, just interested in your solutions.
post #59 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Devi
just interested in your solutions.
Me too.
post #60 of 62
Merriam-Webster:

One entry found for pro-life.


Main Entry: pro-life
Pronunciation: (")prO-'lIf
Function: adjective
Date: 1961
: ANTIABORTION
- pro-lif·er /-'lI-f&r/ noun




That's what I said!! The pResident is "anti-abortion".

I have a hell of a time saying that he is pro-life and I am suprised the dictionary does.


El
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › A question for Bush supporters only