Posted on 06/05/2007 5:40:55 PM PDT by Politicalmom
Bottom line is that we need to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I’m going to pray hard. (Prayer works.)
“Just as there are folks with a 9-10-2001 view of the world when it comes to national defense, your position vis a vis abortion, and that of Fred Thompson, are the equivilent of living in a 1972 world.
Before then, the world was sane. No one thought any individual or state had the right to kill innocent human beings.”
I agree. I expected a right to life amendment in 1974 after Roe v. Wade. But people got distracted by Watergate and Nixon’s resignation and then Congress surrendered to N. Vietnam, then we had the campaign for ERA.
If people wouldn’t pass an amendment in the 1970’s, why would they pass one now? Remember, the real problem with abortions is that a lot of people want them.
I’d rather have a return to 1972 than wait for an amendment that no one is backing. Roe v. Wade is on very shaky ground and can be overturned with the right case.
That would reduce the number of abortions.
If anyone is up and awake- Fred is going to be on Bill Bennett’s radio show in the 8 AM hour.
You can listen here:
http://www.860wgul.com/Default.aspx?
In case you failed to notice, we DO have a global economy, whether you like it or not.
It’s not realistic, nor is it economically prudent, to refuse to trade at all one way or another with the rest of the world. Unless you’d prefer a GDP resembling what we had in 1804.
The two terms are not mutually exclusive. I’m not a globalist in the derogatory sense mentioned here on FR. Nor and I a protectionist (in the derogatory sense mentioned on FR.)
I’m a realist that understands that the economy thrives on trade, but we cannot compromise our sovereignty to achieve that goal. I think Fred falls into the same category, as do most knowledgeable Americans.
I think the fact he has a website and has said what he has said removes all doubt that he’s running.
He’s not hemming and hawing at all. He’s running - he’s just strategically positioning himself to declare at just the right time.
I could answer your questions, but your posts suggest you’re already convinced that everyone but Hunter/Paul/Tancredo/Buchanan/Keyes are hand picked Borg of the CFR/Tri-Lat/Illuminati/Buildahamburger coalition, so nothing I say will satisfy you.
He wasn’t invited to the debates. Therefore, he couldn’t go.
He’ll declare in late June and go to debates after that, and wipe the floor with the other guys in the process.
In the minds of some here, he was. There is a contingent here on FR that would even have criticism for Jesus Christ himself as a candidate.
Fred’s position on trade and globalism seems to be pretty close to Reagan’s from what I’ve seen of his record and heard him say.
Um...you do realize overturning Roe would return the decision to the states, don't you? Overturning Roe would give us exactly the result you describe, as that's how it was pre-1972.
He believes GW is natural causes, I know that. Not sure on the Chinese thing, although he has made it clear that while China is an important trading partner, we must not forget that they have missles aimed at Taiwan as we speak. He seems to have a “Trust, but Verify” attitude about it, which is good by me. Your specific question, I don’t know, and I too would like to hear him address it.
I think that is right. Not what I was expecting. Thanks
GO, FRED, GO.
“Well, he hasn’t got his card yet.”
Kerry and Edwards both have a card, don’t you think if the CFR really wanted to rule the world we would be in a Kerry administration now.
(tinfoil hat on)
Or were John and John just pawns set up by CFR so Bush could win again?
(tinfoil hat off)
Who said anything about refusing to trade?
That’s the implication. What makes a globalist? What makes a protectionist? What’s the dividing line?
OK, refusing to admit that we simply cannot be competitive selling American made products if they cost 5 times what the Chinese ones do.
Kerry was the biggest snore I've seen since Gore. And never did Jorge Bush talk about border control eventhough Buchanan had the Reform Party nomination with $15million and couldn't stop bringing it up. That was 2000! Pre 9/11!
Read some of thenewamerican.com for a few months and you'll be trading in that tin-hat for a pitchfork!
When we need slave labor to make cheap sneakers, how is that in our best interest as a country?
If we let a communist country use our money to build their military, how is that making us more competitive?
Not saying we shouldn’t watch what we do and don’t allow. But entirely saying no to any overseas goods isn’t the solution either. A middle-ground is a possible position, although the protectionists won’t have that, neither will the globalists.
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.