Posted on 03/11/2005 6:32:41 PM PST by Sola Veritas
Rice pointedly declined to rule out running for president in 2008 on Friday during an hour-long interview with reporters at WASHINGTON TIMES, top sources tell DRUDGE. Rice gave her most detailed explanation of a 'mildly pro-choice' stance on abortion, she would not want the government 'forcing its views' on abortion... She explained that she is libertarian on the issue, adding: 'I have been concerned about a government role'... Developing late Friday for Saturday cycles... MORE...
If I have the unfortunate choice of two candidates, both pro-abortion (or mildly pro-choice), one a conservative and one a liberal, I won't sit it out. I will vote for the conservative. To sit it out is to support Hillary who is also pro-abortion. I don't always like my choices in elections, but I vote for the best alternative available. Not to do so is wasteful.
I'd be honored and what's more, I'd be getting TWO new greatgrandchildren at once. Our granddaughter is expecting a baby any day. We're playing a waiting game. You make number seven.
Chamberlain would have loved ya.
You can't negotiate and compromise with Nazis. You can't negotiate and compromise with Islamo-fascists, and you can't negotiate and compromise with American liberals of either party.
When you try, you lose ground for our side every single time.
I've watched compromisers get taken by the Left for years.
The Tom Harkins, Hillary Clintons, Teddy Kennedys, et al, stab 'moderate Republicans' every day without remorse; and the next day, the same naive Republicans come back for more of the same. When will they learn?
This is a war, friend...and the other side doesn't play fair, and they don't compromise in their pursuit of the culture of death.
The sooner you realize it, the more effective you will be...if you truly are pro-life as you way.
Thanks for giving me my new tagline.
Dear Trinity_Tx,
"hasn't even been able to get rid of partial birth abortion -"
We evil no-compromise right-to-lifers having nothing to do with the failure to get rid of partial birth abortion.
Actually, several states and the federal government have all passed laws outlawing partial birth abortion.
However, the black-robed maggots have consistently prevented the implementation of these laws.
As they nullified the laws of the majority of states in 1973 that had up until that time made abortion generally illegal in those states.
Even now, if Roe were overturned, abortion would be significantly restricted or be generally illegal in a majority of states.
It is not the failure of the pro-life movement to compromise that prolongs the killing of the innocent. It is the black-robed moral enormities that sit on the high court that prolong the death. They drink damnation upon themselves by spilling the blood of millions.
sitetest
As someone who has lived in Saudi Arabia for five years, Iran for two (during the fall of the Shah), and Indonesia for two, I think this two hundred year old wahhabism boogeyman is overdone. The true roots of Islamic terrorism come from Khomeini and his hijacking of the Iranian revolution. I would also assert that mainstream Islam is a major part of the problem and has manifested itself in conflicts around the globe long before 1979 or 9/11. Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terrorism regardless of what you say.
No kidding. Do you want (or need) a thesis on the Neo Con philosophy? I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that most here at least grasp the basics.
You assume too much. What are the basics of the neocon philosophy? Is there a seminal document that spells it all out? Do these neocons run the US the same way other conspiracy nuts believe the Bilderbegers run the globe?
Amen Couldn't have said it better.
Even if "You can't compromise on murder" is a platitude to you, it is a principle to me. And I don't think babies are still torn limb from limb because of it.
But I can't answer on whether or not we should compromise on strategy, because I'm not clear on what you mean. I don't see how supporting someone who wants abortion legal is strategically wise, but let us suppose it is. When you help put someone in office who will defend abortion, are you not defending abortion yourself, albeit indirectly?
Of course we must understand the reality of things as we fight to end abortion. That isn't something we can ignore. Still, I don't think we need to fight by the "rules of reality", which strike me as having the meaning "rules of the world". I have two reasons. One, I don't feel overly bound by "reality". There is much more than the reality we see around us, and with God all things are possible. Secondly, our Lord has commanded us to live in a way that defies all the world's rules and wisdom. Our fight isn't necessarily doomed if we conduct it in a way that defies the rules and wisdom of the world we live in.
Then educate me. He sat out the primary, once or twice said a few things that upset the bots on the forum here, but was pretty much supportive. By sitting out the primary, a focused pro-life candidate did not make the position known other than what the Bush team did to win
Evangelicals
Then, if Hillary were elected, you'd deserve what you get!!
Folks quit being in such a snit about this! For one thing, there is nothing in the article that gives any information about her position on the subject, other than the 'mildly pro-choice' mention. Even if she were 'mildly pro-choice', if there were a choice between her and ANY Democrat, there'd be NO QUESTION for whom I'd vote. Just which party gives even a passing pro-life mention? It sure isn't the Dems.
If Condi were able to get through the primary, and has beaten out any other pro-life candidates, then I would consider her the person the majority of Repubs. prefer. At that point, she would have run the gauntlet of the primary Repub. voters, and we know that they tend to be the most Conservative. At that point, we Conservatives would have to make a decision, but I'd hope it would be in regards to what the country would be like with the Dems back in charge, not only with regard to the abortion issue, but the whole issue of National Security as well. If you keep that in mind, there's no way the Dems should be in the White House again anytime in the foreseeable future!
As for the President "setting her up to run", who has put forth this notion, except the media? Frankly, if the media says anything about what the President is thinking or planning, I disregard it, because he certainly doesn't tell THEM before he tells everyone else!
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I'm still undecided about Condi. Need to hear more. I'd also factor in the makeup of the SCOTUS in '08 into the decision.
My big thing with the "libertarian" argument for abortion rights is that it's about as libertarian as Communism.
Either the fetus is a humna or its not.
If it is, the government has as much right to allow you to kill the child in the name of "libertarianism" as it does to give you the right to kill your next door neighbor. It should protect the fetus because the first and most legitimate government function is the protection of defenseless citizens.
If the fetus is not human and merely unwanted tissue, then the state should have no role in deciding whether you abort any more than they should decide whether you have a mole removed, but that is only the case if we know beyond reasonable doubt that the fetus is not human, otherwise the government must err on the side of protection.
Condi's view (if Drudge got it right) is even sillier. There's no reason to be only "mildly pro-choice" if the fetus is tissue (in that case, abort-a-rama, baby, and who cares) and being pro-choice at all if the fetus is human is monstrous.
Do you get the feeling, as I do, that maybe she hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about this issue being preoccupied with foreign affairs and the WOT?
It's possible, but still no excuse. A woman her age should have figured out whether a baby is a baby.
By your logic, we should not have used Stalin to help defeat Hitler.
Spitting in the eye of everyone who wants to go part of the way with you, just because they don't want to go all the way with you, loses the support you need to get the distance they would help you get otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.