Posted on 02/21/2007 2:44:52 PM PST by don-o
Dear Vicomte13,
"Well, we saw in South Dakota - a red state - that when abortion was on the ballot and the people given a flat up or down vote, they voted for abortion."
We saw a law banning abortion WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE OR INCEST getting 44% of the vote.
They'll try again with one with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest.
We'll see what happens then.
sitetest
GOOD ONE, FB! I suspect that's not far from the truth.
Is Bob Barr still working for the ACLU?
Very true. In fact, there seems to be no end of positive pieces about the ex-mayor in the MSM. But that doesn't explain why so many FReepers are going hogwild in support of his candidacy, to the point of ridiculing social conservatives who take a stand against the things Giuliani stands for.
Here's what I think has happened: The GOP got whipped last election because of the war and because of political corruption. But the MSM has been insisting for years that the problem with the GOP is social conservativism. Apparently many Republicans, some of them pundits who do consider themselves conservative, bought that line, so they've decided to ignore what really happened last election and toss the social conservatives out of the tent in the hope of holding onto at least a little bit of political power.
And the liberal media won't report on his liberal views until AFTER the primaries.
He's got THAT right!!!
Vote for a liberal - you'll get liberalism.
It ain't gonna happen.
But, they aren't the only game in town now.
"True Conservatives won't allow a democrat to be elected President"
True but, with Rudy, who can tell the difference? I'm NOT going to sell out my Conservative Principles for a wishy-washy so-called Repub. (of course, you can if you wish) Now wasn't that being nice?
I disagree with your logic. You seem to think Rudy can win with the liberal republican vote only. Those are the libertarians, and they've never won an election on their own.
They'll go up.
FMCDH(BITS)
The article is about social Conservatives, so I was referring to socially liberal Republicans. Libertarians are fiscally Conservative, but socially liberal.
Well, those rape and incest exceptions really vitiate much of the pro-life argument, don't they?
If the REASON not to allow abortion is because it is the murder of an innocent baby, where is the logic in saying it is ok to murder an innocent baby because of a series of acts for which the innocent was not responsible - to wit: the rape or incest of the mother?
Those exceptions don't hold up to rational scrutiny. And, of course, if abortion is allowed in those cases and made illegal otherwise, then THOSE babies will never be protected at all, because you will never get the momentum to get rid of the remaining evil once you've gotten rid of most of it.
The best way to get rid of abortion is to have judges find a human right to life and due process in the Constitution, and remove the issue from democracy in the OTHER direction of Roe. That's the only way, really, to protect ALL the babies, because people are just not good enough to not weasel out in the hard cases.
Wow! If the Libertarians don't want him, and the social Conservatives don't want him, who the heck is voting in these polls? Democrats?
I am firing up the afterburners, don't you become collateral damage, I get a little bit crazy when I get pissed off.
It is past time to kick big city butt! If they want my party, they will have to steal it, by force.
If they want MY vote, they will have to please ME, and win MY confidence. Right now, I don't trust them any further than I can throw them!
Hilary will hurt them, more than she can hurt me, the choice is theirs, it will not be my fault.
Would I rather get bit by a Rattler, or would I prefer a Moccasin? Wow, what a wonderful set of options! I really have no preference, experience tells me that there ain't enough difference to matter!
Darn Straight. The MSM is shoving these freaks down our throats, as if Guiliani and McCain are the undisputed sole entrants in the Republican race. The MSM will turn on either one of these fake Republicans as soon as the Dem candidacy is sewn up. The mud, the rumours, the dirt will bury the Republicans, and the Dems come out victorious.
Everyone needs to realize, and tell their neighbors, that the MSM's sole purpose is to get a weak Dem in the White House. That is the media's real power. They were in charge from '93-01, not Bill Clnton. The MEDIA was in charge, with a deal with the Devil. The MEDFIA is pi$$ed they are no longer calling the shots as they did when Bill Clinton was President. Hence the nonstop lies and nonsense about George Bush. It's all B.S. They had the dirt on Clinton and could have destroyed him instantly, instead they made a deal and covered for him at every turn. And he relinquished his power in exchange for favorable fake polls and stories.
"nominate jurists in the mold of Lawrence Tribe,..."
Don't forget that paragon of jurisprudence, Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
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.