I couldn't care what you say, think, or do. Anyone who would vote for "anyone" that can win, has no integrity or grounds to question anyone else's.
:O)
P
Here, this is just for you!
Posted on 04/01/2007 9:13:44 PM PDT by SE Mom
Back in 1994, when there was nothing to be gained or lost in a nationsl race, several stories from significant news outlets described Thompson as a pro-choice Republican candidate, there are no records of Thompson challenging those articles at that time.
Why didn't he?
Luis Gonzalez wrote: "Asides from the "evil" AP, the National Review was also lying in 1994 about his being pro-choice?"
I never called the AP "evil." I only asked for a link to the AP for the story you attributed to it, not second-hand links that are spread all over the internet by "Evangelicals for Mitt."
And no, I don't think NR "lied." What happened was that Ramesh got his facts mixed up, and he won't admit it.
There are many conservatives who want no immigration, legal or otherwise.
Have no fear if he wins the nomination he'll have my support...
You're losing here and you could show everyone you have capacity to realize that fact.
FDT never said he was pro-choice. He said he was against (federal) government involvement in abortion.
Before Roe vs. Wade the federal government was not involved in abortion issues. It was a States rights issue. The abortionists very much want the federal government to be involved by enforcing abortion rights.
So your whole logic is twisted.
FDT was saying he's in favor of returning to the policy of non-involvement of the federal government in abortion, meaning he is favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade.
It is Roe vs. Wade that forces the federal government to sanction abortion, to the absurd point that it is funded as a public health measure.
I also believe the federal government should have no say in abortion issues and I am pro-life.
Thompson voted pro-life; enough said.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n12_v46/ai_15544266/pg_2
I guess National Review lied as well back in 1994.
Fred Thompson is not interested in a pay cut, having his life turned upside down, in the HOPE of becoming President.
He is playing you all for fools, and you are buying it. There is no committed money left for Thompson OR McCain, it is a complete ruse. McCain thinks Conservatives are dumb, and all the Thompson enthusiasm is proving it.
I don't mean to insult anyone, but you folks are going to look really bad, as soon as Thompson and McCain fill you in.
To be fair this is true...
Oh, come on! I'm not pleased that Fred is a divorcee, but Newt's and Rudy's multiple marriages have been far more scandalous.
"I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area." -- Fred Thompson
That means that an individual should have the choice to abort or not abort according to her own convictions, and free from interference from any level of government.
Pro-choice because it disallows for the government making abortion illegal.
I don't think he has an exactly stellar record on tort reform and the like either.
I've read buzz about that as well.
Really? Can you name them? In all the immigration discussions I've never heard anyone say they were against legal immigration.
The following post on FR provides a different take on Fred's views on abortion, implying he has been pro-life since 1994. In fact the National Right to Life group endorsed him when he first ran for the Senate. Surely as the lastest polls show, Fred is cutting into Mitt's support, and perhaps Giuliani's. It is only natural that Mitt's supporters would respond. I do not doubt Mitt's conversion to the pro-life cause. After all, Geo. H. W. Bush was pro-choice, changed his position and never waivered from it while he was Vice-President and President. Such may be the case with Fred & Mitt as well.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805399/posts
Not true. There are a 'few' conservatives that want no immigration period. But 'most' conservatives would now favor a moratorium on all immigration until it is demonstrated that the nation can secure its borders and manage a flow of legal immigrants. Then they will favor legal immigration.
Conservatives do not hate immigrants, they hate a government that is mismanaged and wasteful on any issue including immigration.
So you cannot say conservatives do not want legal immigration, they in fact do want immigration when it is managed properly to fill well-defined targeted needs of the country.
And past generations of conservatives have supported legal immigration in a focused manner. For example, the Lithuanian communities of Detroit and Chigago were started in the early 1900s by an influx of immigrants brought in by the automotive manufacturing industry. Workers were needed and those people had the skills. Their families followed them. Once enough workers were placed, the immigration was cut.
What we have now is an uncontrolled mess.
Conservatives are not against the immigrants, they are against the 'mess'.
Well, I guess you've missed all the posts in this forum pertaining to H1B visas and such, all the comments about the nation being overcrowded.
Frankly, you're either being disingenuous or you simply haven't read as much in this forum as I have.
Or maybe, and to give you the benefit of the doubt, while you've not seen anything in all the immigration discussions you've seen, you haven't apparently seen all the threads on immigration in this forum, and you missed the comments.
They've been made, they've been made plenty of times, and whether or not you believe me is immaterial.
They twisted it. Alot of journals did and still do.
Part of your experience on FR is learning how the media attempts to twist facts and events to generate perception that is separate from reality.
Let go of this line you're holding. It's not gaining you anything.
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.