Posted on 07/01/2005 7:14:03 AM PDT by SueRae
Hearing on Fox News
I second that! There are a lot of programs I find necessary. That said I want my state to get back in highway funds what they pay in with their taxes on gasoline and quit funding the Northeast by more than what they paid into the fund. I would love to get rid of some of the pork starting with Byrd in West Virginia as well who is named the king of pork for good reason.
I don't compromise on Defense spending at all -- spent my entire adult life around the Air Force and DoD activities and know how vital they are to our security. For every story about an overrun there are plenty of stories that don't make the news about cost saving measures that have helped throughout the AF.
Dr. Tom is the success story of the decade in politics IMHO of someone who got in the primary race late, energized the base, won the primary without a run-off, and clobbered the RAT in the general election even though people like Denny Hastert said he was going to lose. I remember Cong Istook getting so upset he went charging into the Speaker's office to tell him he was dead wrong. We had one of the best grassroots movements I have ever been associated.
Dr. Tom never wavered in his beliefs and neither did all of us working to elect him -- it was a lot of work but a lot of fun. Never regretted going over to the Coburn campaign when he announced from another campaign where I suspected the candidate was just mouthing the words of being a conservative -- he was better than the RAT by a long shot but could not compare to Dr. Tom. With Dr. Tom I knew he was a conservative.
Thanks for ping, Freekeys!
In my opinion, the recent Supreme Court decision against New London is the end result of the line of thinking that suggests it's better to install someone who is "electable" or "acceptable" rather than someone who stands on genuine pricnciple: evil may be forestalled until later, but it will surely come inevitably.
Several of the justices which sided with Souter were appointees promoted by Republican presidents as candidates with pedigrees which the Left in the Senate found acceptable enough to pass. Thomas was a big exception to the rule and proves what you get when a man of genuine integrity and principle DOES make it in.
The era of the "electable" executive is over. The era of the "acceptable" judicial appointee is over. We, the people, needed long ago to support candidates who are not afraid to stand up to the Left. The sooner we get genuine Constitutionalist executives in office, the sooner we'll see nominees to the bench who adjudicate the law as written and not legislate law the way they think it ought to be.
I wanted to get my new tag in...
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S7899&dbname=2005_record
This is the second page of Warner's speech, I sent the first page, but it didn't show up on the thread...
Will try again...
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S7898&dbname=2005_record
THIS is the first page, sorry I got them in the wrong order, I am lucky I got it at all...
Please read this and let me know what you think about what he says...
later
sleuth
I don't need to take a poll, nor do I read abortion polls. I talk to women. The vast majority of women that I know say that they would never have an abortion themselves, but they think it should remain legal.
No one is seriously advocating banning birth control pills at this stage. If they are, as most are, abortifacient pills rather than contraceptive pills, then they are abortion means and bannable.
At this stage...because if you talk about it now, your support would drop 50%.
I would rather have 100,000 women acting immorally and killing their babies than give government the power to force one to remain pregnant.
Maybe we can advance beyond that to trying the abortion mob for crimes against humanity! Did you know that there were prosecutions of abortionists (for committing abortions) at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal? Source: Professor of History John Hunt (possibly emeritus by now), St. Joseph College, West Hartford, CT.
If you regard a total crackdown on abortion as the worst tyranny of an overly powerful government, you have a very limited imagination and a limited grasp of reality.
Your first paragraph suggests that yours is a regrettable social circle of those who believe in preserving a "right" to homicide against innocent victims in a nation not sure of the morality of executing the likes of Charlie Manson, Scott Peterson and the growing legion of rape-murderers of ten-year-olds, much less the more mundane local abortion mill operator.
Also, can you spell: "anecdotal" which is not a compliment to those who extrapolate public opinion from their inner circle of similar eccentrics? One antonym to "anecdotal" is responsible general polling by professionals who know what they are doing and the relationship between the characteristics of pollees and the characteristics of the general public.
Your last paragraph says it all. At the very least, it is not conservative to advocate or even to tolerate the slaughter by surgical abortion of one hundred thousand innocent babies, period. End of story.
Why do you imagine yourself conservative when you display the "ethics" and "philosophy" of Margaret Sanger or Ayn Rand????
Is J. C. Watts really going to stand for the office of Oklahoma governor???? Please say yes but only if it is so. No state will deserve envy as much as Oklahoma in the event of his election. Actually, this is already true, given your senatorial delegation!
Good night and God bless!
I've heard that line seceral times myself--- "I wouldn't have an abortion, but I don't want to prohibit other women." Turns out several of my 'friends' (coworkers when we were all young) actually had abortions because they used it as birth control after the fact, fooling with married men. Dummies.
I'll have toget some help opening this. still trying to download it. (I'm such a goof)
"He can step forward and be a uniter, not a divider, in this nomination by selecting someone who will gain the confidence of the majority of Americans, someone who will enable the two aisles here to remove the center aisle, and we can join in a bipartisan way to give strong ratification to the President's choice."
In other words, the President should "go along to get along". Disgusting.
(and as if "the majority of Americans" appreciate having their laws struck down for offending the personal sensibilities of certain philosopher-king wannabes)
That was exactly what I was disgusted by in his speech, among other things..
I posted this because Friday, most hadn't seen his speech, and I posted on this thread that I was spitting mad at some of what he said...your quote is one of them...and he is playing right into the dems hands with that attitude..
Just like Hagel plays into the dem's hands, by saying that we are losing in Iraq.
Gosh, I don't know what to tell you...
I have never posted an article before, (obviously, or it wouldn't have taken two posts, with the pages in the wrong order..lol), but whenever I click the link, it comes up on my computer...
Maybe you can keep trying...let me know if you still can't get it, okay?
In your opinion. I don't think it is particularly conservative to force a continued pregnancy under threat of government action.
The law says I may not murder my husband, but I don't have to remain living with him. I have a number of other options that I can choose. That seems reasonable to me. In this case, the flip side of outlawing abortion is using the force of government to demand that an individual woman remain pregnant. I don't wish that level of government involvement in people's lives.
I fully understand your opinion, I simply don't happen to share it.
I've never had an abortion and I cannot see any situation in which I ever would. I think 99% of abortions are performed for immoral reasons. I still don't feel comfortable with the government demanding women remain pregnant. If "we the people" all got a vote, and the majority decided to outlaw aborton altogether, I would accept that with no problem at all.
My problem is with 9 justices making the decision for the rest of us.
Divorcing your husband instead of killing your husband has an analogue in giving a child up for adoption rather than murdering the child. I realize that such complex reasoning escapes the "moderate" baby killers but it is valid nonetheless. That is not just my opinion but objective reality.
Finally, I and most social conservatives have no interest whatsoever in making common political cause with those who believe in defending the "right" to perpetrate homicide against innocent unborn infants. I am also not interested in allying with gun grabbers, "conservative" Stalinists or Al Qaeda. Ten conservative Democrats will gladly step up to replace in the GOP each and every departing advocate of baby-killing. My opinions do not result in the death of innocent human beings by the tens of millions. Yours have and do, when translated into public policy by SCOTUS without so much as a by-your-leave to democratic decision-making. The tie breaker between and among opinions is objective reality or A is A. The unborn are human beings and entitled not to be killed.
If you think you are somehow conservative while advocating the killing of babies, think again and join with your leftist and nihilist soulmates. Do not defame the honorable name of "conservative" by suggesting that baby-killing is "conservative."
I don't know what JC's decisions may hinge on but he was repeatedly elected in his Congressional District and, if most Oklahoma voters are registered Democrats, many must be the right kind of Democrats in a state electing Don Nickles and then Jim Inhofe and (hallelujah) Tom Coburn to the US Senate.
The Insurance Industry is probably very sorry to see her go, considering her ruling in "Pilot Life v. Dedeaux" about ERISA preemption eliminated all of the legal rights to protect policyholders from fraudulent and bad-faith insurance company practices.
Too bad she didn't retire before that ruling.
I can walk out on my husband tomorrow. If I become pregnant, I must remain pregnant until the child is born in order to give the child up for adoption. I thought that was an obvious point. Apparently, it was too complex for you. If a fetus could be removed from the woman and adopted within a week or two of learning about the pregnancy, I'd be all for it.
I stated in a post to another poster that I have no problem with Roe being overturned. I'd rather "we the people" vote on the issue. I'm not comfortable with 9 judges deciding the issue for us, whichever way they vote. You must have missed that.
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.