Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Turning the Tables on a Catholic Left Ideologue

Some overly ideological Democath partisan hack*:
If those making this argument would otherwise support the health care reform on offer, this is one thing. But if those making the argument are not inclined to support the reform, then they are using the unborn to score a cheap political point. Shameful, but par for the course for what calls itself the pro-life movement in the US. Remember, the NRLC has opposed universal health care for years, for reasons unconnected to abortion, and Judie Brown is happy to extol the virtues of torture.
Now, let's turn the tables on our shilling friend:
If those making the argument in favor of the health care reform on offer (despite the likelihood that it will provide federally funded and/or mandated abortion coverage) would otherwise support efforts to protect the civil rights of the unborn by working to overturn the unjust legal regime that mandates abortion on demand, this is one thing. But if those making the argument in favor of this health care reform effort are not inclined to support the abortion abolition agenda, then they are phony pro-lifers using their alleged "consistent ethic of life" approach to score cheap political points and confuse Catholics into voting for their agenda. Shameful, but par for the course for those that hide behind the so-called "seamless garment" to push a statist agenda that otherwise bears no resemblance to Catholic Social Teaching. Remember, the Catholic left (including Catholics United, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Catholic Democrats, etc.) have ignored the plight of the unborn for years, for reasons unconnected to health care reform, and Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Mario Cuomo, and Doug Kmiec are happy to extol the virtues of "choice".

* Normally, I would ignore someone who refers to me as a "Republicath" (and I have especially been ignoring this particular Dem shill as of late); but, in this instance, I've decided to respond in kind. The difference is that, since I'm actually NOT a Republican (and, in fact, have been fairly disgusted with that party for a number of years now), whereas my interlocutor is MOST DEFINITELY a Democath partisan hack, the epithet with which I have chosen to describe him at least has the benefit of being accurate.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

7 Comments:

At 8/11/2009 9:39 PM, Blogger Christine the Soccer Mom said...

For a lot of us, the idea that killing babies is included is just ONE of the many problems we have with this Obamacare. I certainly don't use the unborn as a prop, and, to be honest, if I'm debating the issue with someone who doesn't care about abortions being paid for by the program, it isn't even something I bring up.

Really, something needs to be done, and it's probably going to have something to do with eliminating insurance in its current form. Doctors have to raise their prices when insurance companies get the claim and send back a note saying, "Yes, we know you asked for $100 for that exam and bloodwork. We are telling you that you should only charge $45, and we'll give you this $25 towards your expenses. Charge our customer only $20, please." What I think is that the whole thing costs less than that, but they have to artificially raise prices to cover their expenses (including paying someone to deal with paperwork) so when the insurance company tells them that they are to deduct more than half the charge, they aren't left with a negative at the end.

Again, something needs to be done, but this sure ain't it. Especially with the government cutting payments to doctors even more.

So, yeah, I've got problems with the abortion side of it, and my pro life friends and I pray that whatever passes doesn't include it (or that this will be defeated), but none of us think this is the only reason this bill (or the forty thousand versions of the behemoth thing) needs to die.

It's probably just the best one.

 
At 8/11/2009 10:51 PM, Blogger DP said...

Waste. Of. Time.

Which is not to say that it's not a fine--indeed, perfectly targetted--effort, Jay. But you're dealing with a serial liar and smear artist who's currently doing the rounds posing as an ASCII Martyr at each site that linked to my pasting of him. Really. My evangelical pal Chris Johnson dropped me a line about his faux St. Stephen act there. Obsess much?

You're trying to address someone who thinks *he's entitled to his own facts*, not merely his own *opinions.* He can't think--or argue--without labels (which, as noted above, are frequently *lies*--e.g., his repeated assertion that you are a Republican, despite the clear evidence to the contrary). Nor can he post without displaying his laundry list of grudges and obsessions.

Not worth your valuable time. There are progressive/left Catholics who matter, and who don't routinely traffic in smears and lies in the process. Take them on instead.

 
At 8/12/2009 10:39 AM, Blogger Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

What Dale said. This guy (as well as the blog he comes from) has gotten enough of our attention.

 
At 8/12/2009 11:54 AM, Anonymous Paul Zummo said...

Sorry, I just had to laugh at the fact that he called you a bully (on Chris's site). Talk about not taking the heat.

 
At 8/12/2009 11:55 AM, Anonymous Paul Zummo said...

Sorry, I guess I just clarify that the "you" was Dale.

 
At 8/13/2009 1:30 PM, Blogger DP said...

Some of the new people at VN seem all right--e.g., Rocha, Wheeler-Reid. I still like MZ (even though he's too willing to give Obama a free hand) and while I think it's borderline futile to argue with him, Henry Karlson's heart is in the right place.

But, alas, you have three contributors happy to churn poison into the mix, including the serial liar and smear artist at the helm. Not worth the effort to fight through that to find the good ones.

 
At 8/13/2009 1:31 PM, Blogger DP said...

Paul:

Yeah, that *was* funny. I thought the exact same thing. More than a little rattled, I think.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger