Talking With People
Don Jones
explain what they are saying?
At the demonstration yesterday I sought out the few Bush supporters and
asked them open ended questions to understand what they felt.
I offerred one man my sign and he refused with a look of disgust and
offerred, "I think you are a bunch of jerks and should show respect for
the office." Unfortunately his response to my questions about what was
respect met with "I am not going to talk with you, you are closed
minded."
We are going to work hard to learn to engage people in non-threatening
ways to get the truth out.
JohnC
You really need to get over your Bush and America hatred. You LOST the
elections in 2000 and 2004, just accept it and try to figure out why
you liberals keep losing elections.
I'll give you a hint...Americans don't agree with your Democrat party
that one American should have the right to kill and innocent American
baby boy or girl, growing in the womb. Those children are created in
the image of God and you have no right to destroy them.
You, personally, may be opposed to abortion but if you vote for
Democrats or engage in this embarrassing Bush bashing like you did at
Calvin, you are supporting those who kill children. Did you know the
babies in the womb actually feel pain when they are aborted?
So, Don, I am willing to talk with you, if you are open minded. I will
engage with you in a non-threatening way to get the truth out.
Of course the father or friend at the commencement did not want to talk
with you...your liberalism and Bush bashing at a happy event like a
Calvin Commencement was uncalled for and out of line. Where is your
civility and compassion for others?
Don Jones
What evidence do you have that I hate Bush?
What evidence do you have that I hate America?
Why if you want an open dicussion do you write "lost" in caps and bring
up the 2000 and 2004 elections? Do you support accepting the results
of the 2004 election or do you support the GOP "Vote Fraud Alert" that
was issued last week?
I believe the primary reason liberals have lost some of the recent
elections is because their opponents have effectively framed issues,
distorted the truth and more effectively got supporters to the polls.
If you wanted an open discussion, why would you write the condscending
"I'll give you a hint..."? and then not answer the question as to why
people would hold a sign but not talk about it.
I believe for many American voters abortion is a litmus test issue. I
personally am quite conflicted about abortion and tending to become
more pro-life over the years. Of course you realize there are pro-life
Democrats, including ones in positions of power within the party. We
should be careful about labeling people and making assumptions about
them.
I reject your premise that by engaging in Bush bashing that I am
supporting those who kill childern or unborn babies or fetuses.
I am not a doctor, but I would assume that at some point babies in the
womb can feel pain when they are aborted. I hope you are not implying
the ability to feel pain is the determinant for whether or not one
should be allowed to abort a fetus.
We do not know if the person holding the Bush Cheney sign was a father
or friend. Please be more carefull with your assumptions. If they
were there for the ceremony why were they holding up a sign?
You are entitled to your opinion that Bush bashing at a commencement is
uncalled for and out of line. I respectfully disagree.
Since I was not at the commencement I must relie on news reports that
say that the ceremony was in no way disrupted by dissenters.
To call into question my civility and compassion for others because I
choose to exercise my right to free speech is unlikely to foster an
open-minded discussion. I invited you to do as I do for week and then
let me know your judgement on my civility and compassion. Again, we
should be carefull about lumping people together under labels before we
know who they are and what they stand for.
Thank you for being willing to talk, unlike those few counter
demonstrators on Saturday.
Peace,
Don
JohnC
Q. What evidence do you have that I hate Bush? What evidence do you
have that I hate America?
A. The fact that you were carrying a protest sign and harassing family
and friends of Calvin grads, and the fact that you think you have to
"get the truth out" about Bush, tells us more about you than you
know. This arrogant assumption implies that Bush is not getting the
truth out and you are! You may not admit that you actively hate Bush,
but by your actions and words you support those that do hate him, like
Howard Dean.
For example, did you see Howard Dean imploding on "Meet the Press"
yesterday? We as conservative Christians could not have hoped for a
better "leader" of the Democrat party. The lefts kooks have taken
over the mainstream, in the person of Howard "AAARGH!" Dean and his
hatred of Republicans. Here's Howard Dean in January: "I hate the
Republicans and everything they stand for."
Howard Dean in February: "This is a struggle between good and evil and
we're the good."
So, Don, by your blind support for the Democrat party, Howard Dean,
John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and the new chief
obstructionist, Harry Reid, you show your support for the Bush and
America haters.
Hatred for Bush was shown by anyone who signed the Bush bashing letters
in the newspaper or protested his visit to Calvin. President Bush is a
good Christian man, doing a good job as president on all fronts. Not
perfect, mind you, but of course none of us are. But by embarrassing
the Calvin community and bringing politics to this happy event, the
leftist have exposed themselves. They see a chance to bash Bush as more
important than letting the graduates have a happy day, and for Bush to
speak to them about community service and giving back in the future.
Q. Why if you want an open dicussion do you write "lost" in caps and
bring
up the 2000 and 2004 elections? Do you support accepting the results
of the 2004 election or do you support the GOP "Vote Fraud Alert" that
was issued last week?
A. I put the fact that you LOST the elections in 2000 and 2004 because
most liberals still have not faced that reality. They go around
spreading lies about Bush "stealing" the elections or being
"selected". Nothing could be further from the truth and the first
step on your road to recovery is to admit you lost and try to figure
out the real reasons why.
Bush won in Florida, any way you look at it. Outside entities and media
like The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN have confirmed the
vote counts of the Florida election, and Bush would have won any way
you count it. Thank God Al Gore's illegal attempt to steal the
election was stopped by the law. Sore/Loserman fails again.
Liberals like Don have a religious belief that somehow Gore won
Florida...and he will not be talked out of her belief, even with facts!
So the myth that no black voters were counted in Florida in 2000
continues. The myth that blacks in the millions were denied the right
to even get to the polls. None of those two things are true. The
Supreme Court did not "deliver the presidency to George W. Bush." The
Electoral College did. The media has conducted two separate recounts
six-month surveys, if you will, of the votes in Florida and concluded
that in three-of-the-four techniques used, and two of the four are
lockstep, most common. The other two were fringe techniques that would
never be used anyway. In three of the four, Bush wins! They went and
counted votes throughout the state. They counted votes in only the
counties Gore asked to be recounted. They counted every number of ways.
They counted dangling chads, hanging chads. They gave Gore every
benefit of the doubt. Bush still won.
But even had that not been the case the election was already certified,
the electors from the state of Florida had already been certified by
the governor Jeb Bush, the Florida legislature had they had to, would
have gone back in and recertified, sent the results up to Washington,
the House of Representatives. There was no way Gore was going to win
this.
The Supreme Court didn't deprive anybody of being president. They
didn't give the presidency to anybody. All the Supreme Court did was
tell the Florida Supreme Court, "Stop. You cannot make up election law
from your bench. That's the job of the Florida legislature." They were
changing recount rules every appeal that went to the Florida Supreme
Court. They were counting ways of counting that didn't exist. They were
coming up with new ways of counting votes, and the U.S. Supreme Court
told 'em twice to stop, and when they didn't stop, the Supreme Court
stopped it itself.
You know, Don, you people cannot get the truth through your heads --
and I'll tell you, that's why there's such fear and outrage among
these democrats. There's just fear of powerlessness that these people
have, and they fear the loss of continued power, or the lack of access
to it, and they become like spoiled children, whining and complaining
and moaning. The very people that are doing the most to protect them
are the people they are most scared of. For example, in this war on
terror.
Then Bush overwhelmingly won the 2004 election, but some democrats
can't accept that. They want to change the Constitution and they want
the democrats, as the losing minority with few votes, to somehow decide
which judges get named to the bench. The Constitution is very clear
that the President gets to nominate who he wants - after all he WON
- and the Senate's duty is to vote up or down, yes or no, reject or
confirm the nominees.
Q. Then, Don, you ask "Do you support accepting the results
of the 2004 election or do you support the GOP "Vote Fraud Alert" that
was issued last week? "
A. Both.
I support the fact that Bush won the popular vote AND the electoral
vote, and I support the fact that we must root out the democrat voter
fraud we saw. After all, we can't let the democrats get away with
this crime, just because Bush happened to win. We must prosecute those
who engaged in voter fraud to the fullest extent of the law, and put
procedures in place so democrats can't pull the same tricks next
time.
For example, we can officially add another state to the list where
fraud occured that Democrats won't care about. The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel reports that investigators have evidence of voter fraud in
Milwaukee from the 2004 election. Evidence includes over 200 cases
where felons voted illegally, and over 100 people voted twice, used
fake names or addresses or voted in the name of a deceased person.
The Democrats will just file this under "John Kerry Won This State So
We Don't Care." They're still focused on pretending that Bush stole
Ohio.
Q. I believe the primary reason liberals have lost some of the recent
elections is because their opponents have effectively framed issues,
distorted the truth and more effectively got supporters to the polls.
Nice try, Don. But the American people were not fooled by the democrats
attempts to frame issues, and they won't be fooled in 2006 or 2008.
I'll give you an example: In his "Meet the Press" implosion on
Sunday, Howard "AaaRGH! Dean again explained how they will try to
fool people by talking about abortion differently. They know
Christians like you have a big problem with their strong stance on
supporting more abortions with no restrictions, and their strong
support from and of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, People for the American
Way, National Abortion Federation, NOW, The Democratic Party, Emily's
List, and so on.) If you want to educate yourself on the links between
these disgusting organizations and their culture of death, and other
socialists and communists, go to http://www.discoverthenetwork.org and
look them up.
So Dean knows they lose on the moral issues, so his answer is not
"let's become more moral!" No...his answer is to "frame the
issues" better, in other words use different words.
Howard Dean on abortion on Sunday:
"I'm not advocating we change our position. I believe that a woman
has a right to make up her own mind about what kind of health care she
gets [and her right to painfully end the God given life of a living
baby girl or boy, who feels pain], and I think Democrats believe that
in general. The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good
thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own
mind about her health care, or a family has a right to make up their
own mind about how their loved ones leave this world. I think the
Republicans are intrusive and they invade people's personal privacy,
and they don't have a right to do that."
So, Don...Howard Dean thinks one person has the right to end the life
of a living, God created human being, if she "makes up her own
mind" that she wants to end that life through the painful process of
abortion. Do you agree with Dean, Don?
So Dean thinks maybe if they don't use the word "abortion" or
"pro-choice", that maybe they can get more votes. The end result is
the same: the babies life, created in God's image, is destroyed in a
painful and bloody procedure that stops his or her beating heart. The
dead baby is not concerned if Howard Dean, or you Don, or the democrats
call this "abortion" or some other euphemism. They are dead. And
the 40 million aborted babies deaths since Roe v. Wade are you on your
head if you support these democrats.
Q. If you wanted an open discussion, why would you write the
condscending
"I'll give you a hint..."? and then not answer the question as to why
people would hold a sign but not talk about it.
A. I wrote I would "give you a hint" since I wanted to give you a
hint as to why you keep losing elections. And I answered why the person
would not talk to you about the sign. They were disgusted by your
anti-Bush protesting in the face of all the good Christian work he has
done, and the inappropriateness of protesting and putting false rumors
in the press on a day that is supposed to be happy for the grads and
their families.
As he told you, "I think you are a bunch of jerks and should show
respect for
the office."
Q. I believe for many American voters abortion is a litmus test issue.
I
personally am quite conflicted about abortion and tending to become
more pro-life over the years. Of course you realize there are pro-life
Democrats, including ones in positions of power within the party. We
should be careful about labeling people and making assumptions about
them.
A. Yes, Don...especially for the 40 million dead American baby boys and
girls, YOU BET this is a "litmus test" issue. Where is your compassion
for them? They are created in the image of God, after all. How can you
support democrats, who are pro-abortion, by hiding behind other false
issues like "the economy" or "the poor" or "taxes" or
"the war"?
You can have disagreements on the policies here, whether we should
increase taxes on working Americans or not (Bush says no, let's
empower each family and let them keep more of what they earn). But how
does that justify your voting for those that kill baby boys and girls?
You try to use "the war" to give you political cover for your
anti-Bush and socialist agenda. But as I have explained at length in
other posts, the war was fully justified and agreed to by an
overwhelming majority from both parties, both chambers of congress, and
the American people. Sure, democrats are now backtracking and
backstabbing, with 20/20 vision, but they are not getting away with it.
Witness the 2004 election. The American people have overwhelmingly
dismissed the lies and demagoguery of the democrat party and voted Bush
in for a second term.
So Don you are "conflicted about abortion and tending to become
more pro-life over the years" Gee, that is big of you. Not
conflicted enough to support those that want to end the bloody painful
process of course, are you? Not "tending" towards pro-life enough
to actually SUPPORT those who believe as you "say" you do, are you?
No, instead you search for any thin reed you can grasp to maintain
your leftist position, in the face of the 40 million dead. The 2000
dead American soldiers gave the last full measure of devotion defending
you and America, and they liberated 50 million and protected another
280 million Americans from WMD passed through terrorist groups. But you
try to use that issue to shield you from voting for pro-life
Republicans.
Q. Then, Don, you put forward the mistaken notion that "Of course
you realize there are pro-life Democrats, including ones in positions
of power within the party. We
should be careful about labeling people and making assumptions about
them."
A. Don, yes, of course there are some democrats who have to say they
are pro-life, to win in their heavily Christian and moral districts.
But they are in no way "in positions of power within the party."
You remember: the DNC would not even let ANY pro-life people SPEAK at
their convention...you must be in lockstep with the NARALS and the
Planned Parenthoods of the world, or you are finished in the Democrat
party.
Democrats became the party of what they called abortion rights. Fine.
It seemed to them right at the time and a step toward human progress.
But now, 30 years later, after all the things we've seen and pondered,
after all that science has shown us, the Democratic Party has grown not
less radical on abortion, but more. Your party won't even agree to ban
third-term abortions--which is the abortion of a baby who looks and
seems fully human and capable of life because he is. The Democrats
oppose parental consent even in the cases of 14-year-olds who are
themselves children. It opposes directing doctors to inform frightened
young women before an abortion is performed that there are other
options, other possible paths.
This is so radical. So out of touch with the feeling and thought of the
vast middle of the country. So at odds with our self-image as a nation.
We think we try to protect the vulnerable. We think we're kind.
Democratic leaders are radical on abortion because they live in fear
of--brace yourself, more snobs coming--a pro-abortion lobby that has
money, clout and workers, and that can kill the hopes of any Democratic
aspirant who doesn't toe the line. And that pro-abortion lobby is
largely composed of the professionals, journalists, lawyers and
operatives who long ago showed such contempt for America. And for
Southie. And for taxpayers. And for those who hold to a spiritual or
nonspiritual sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and who have a
visceral sense that abortion is bad for our nation and its future.
The Democratic Party's complete obeisance to this lobby makes Democrats
look bought, frightened and craven. It also makes them look stone cold.
You look that way when you back stone-cold policies.
Here's a funny thing. I've met a lot of the Democratic nomination
hopefuls, and they don't seem cold or indifferent. They seem like
people who are doing what they think they have to do to survive. You're
making these guys do some bad things.
And there's this. Deep down, in some still vital area of human
knowledge within you, the place where you just know things, you have
got to know that no political party primarily funded, supported and led
by fierce pro-abortionists, by people whose great interest in life is
seeing to it that the right to kill infants is retained, can long
endure. Nothing can long stand on a foundation like that. Nothing.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110003143
Q. I reject your premise that by engaging in Bush bashing that I am
supporting those who kill childern or unborn babies or fetuses.
A. You can "reject" it if you want...but explain why and how? By
bashing Bush, and supporting his rabid pro-abortion opponents,
supporting those who kill childern or unborn babies or fetuses. Your
vote and your actions and words have CONSEQUENCES, Don.
You will be held accountable for your words, your actions and your
votes. Choose wisely.
Q. I am not a doctor, but I would assume that at some point babies in
the
womb can feel pain when they are aborted. I hope you are not implying
the ability to feel pain is the determinant for whether or not one
should be allowed to abort a fetus.
A. Don, how cruel and unusual of you! You want to callously ignore the
pain and suffering of the unborn baby boys and girls, and use some
other "determinant" to decide if we should kill them or not? How
about the "determinant" that they are created in the image of God
and they have unalienable rights, given by God, including the Right To
Life, as set down by our Founders? How about THAT "determinant",
Don?
Q. We do not know if the person holding the Bush Cheney sign was a
father
or friend. Please be more carefull with your assumptions. If they
were there for the ceremony why were they holding up a sign?
A. Don, get off your silly sign issue. Address the real issues and your
failure as a party and a philosophy.
Q. You are entitled to your opinion that Bush bashing at a commencement
is
uncalled for and out of line. I respectfully disagree.
A. And you are wrong Don. Bush bashing at a commencement is
uncalled for and out of line.
Q. Since I was not at the commencement I must relie (sic) on news
reports that
say that the ceremony was in no way disrupted by dissenters.
A. The ceremony and happiness of the day WAS disrupted by the leftists,
who injected their politics into what should have been a happy day and
an honor to be visited by the President of the United States and the
leader of the free world. These little pipsqueak leftists always have
to whine and cry and disrupt any good event. I look forward to the day
when all liberals discover the error of their ways and come back to the
truth.
Q. To call into question my civility and compassion for others because
I
choose to exercise my right to free speech is unlikely to foster an
open-minded discussion. I invited you to do as I do for week and then
let me know your judgement on my civility and compassion. Again, we
should be carefull about lumping people together under labels before we
know who they are and what they stand for.
A. Don, THIS forum is the forum for discussing ideas with an open
mind...not prancing around disrupting the family and friends of Calvin
grads who were just trying to attend their loved one's ceremony.
Q. Thank you for being willing to talk, unlike those few counter
demonstrators on Saturday.
A. You are welcome, and I hope you will keep an open mind and discuss
the issues with civility. We already had one liberal on this forum,
"Brent", assume the typical liberal position and squeal "you are
not worthy of a reply" and "la la la la I can't hear you", the
typical childish response with his fingers in his ears.
I am glad you are willing to discuss these issues, Don, for as the
great Justice Clarence Thomas once said: "we best arrive at truth
through a process of honest and vigorous debate. Arguments should not
sneak around in disguise, as if dissent were somehow sinister. One
should not cowed by criticism. In my humble opinion, those who come to
engage in debates of consequence, and who challenge accepted wisdom,
should expect to be treated badly. Nonetheless, they must stand
undaunted. That is required. And, that should be expected. For, it is
bravery that is required to secure freedom. On matters of
consequence, reasons and arguments must be of consequence. Therefore,
those who choose to engage in such debates must themselves be of
consequence."
>From "Be Not Afraid":
http://www.murrayco.com/forum/be_not_afraid_clarence_thomas.html
Peace, JohnC