Number one: I don’t use language like that.
Number two: I’ve known who I was since I was 16 years old, and have ALWAYS been pro-life. I cannot imagine changing my opinion on abortion. Though, of course,I am glad when pro-choicers change their view on this method of murder, where were they before that change, and what views have NOT changed? Your conversion is wonderful, Mr. Silverback. Bless you for that.
I NEVER implied that Fred Thompson -——! I just consider the facts of what a candidate has done, or not done, to arrive at my conclusions. By the way, I’ve asked other Thompson backers to list Thompson’s qualifications for the presidency and have yet to get a reply. His height and name recognition may be important in a golf match or track meet, but those winners take their cups and go home. A winning candidate is around for four to eight years, making a difference in our lives. The guy with most of the marbles should win.
I thinl you’re not getting replies because FR has now listed so many links to his qualifications that people could be wondering why you expect them to spoon feed others when the info is in the threads everyday.
But I will assist.
Here’s a link that attests to his intellect. He has an extraordinary intellect and knowledge of American history as well as a keen insight to its future evolution. Here’s the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1811892/posts
And the a treasure trove of info on FDT is maintained by Sturm Ruger (God Bless him for doing so):
http://www.freerepublic.com/~sturmruger/
You clearly meant to imply that Thompson was inferior to Hunter because Hunter hasn't ever had a conversion from pro-choice to pro-life. Then, when called on it, you start talking about other qualifications. I only care what candidates truly believe right now; I don't care how long they've been pro-life. I only care if they really are pro-life. Both Hunter and Thompson have proven with their votes that they'll stand for life.
As to those qualifications, I'm scratching my head here...if Thompson isn't qualified by his Senate service, why is Hunter qualified by his House service? Both would make a good president, IMHO, but I'm not seeing why Fred is unqualified and Duncan is ready for prime-time. Could you explain that, please?