Posted on 07/10/2007 9:06:01 AM PDT by Dick Bachert
One thing we have learned in the past two or three years is that RINOs outnumber conservatives in the GOP by probably 3-1 in major office.
FDT on abortion:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07061903.html
Detailed comments? From Fred Thompson? ROFL...that’s a good one!
“Did you know that Baker had two famous fathers-in-law: Everett Dirksen and Alf Landon? Of coure, Alf never knew Baker as a son-in-law, just as another sellout GOP senator like his daughter.”
Yes and no. I knew about Everett Dirksen. Being in Panama, we did not get the news you would get in the States at the time even if it was through the MSM. Today, those who are still living in Panama get our U.S. news through the internet. Therefore, I did not know about Alf Landon. I will research it. Thank you.
I did not realize he had been married twice (which doesn’t matter). His wife at the time of the Panama Canal giveaway, I believe was an alcoholic. Who was her father? I believe it was Dirksen, yes?
Thank you again.
Head meet brick wall. He never said states had the right to kill unborn babies. He said that Roe vs wade should have been left to the states.
But keep repeating something long enough and I’m sure it will become truth.... for you
“Folks need to face facts: Mr. Thompson is a Tennessee moderate. Always has been, always will be. His driving motivation has always been “bipartisanship.” “
You are absolutely right. Fred Thompson as president will be the equivalent of a George H.W. Bush presidency. A one termer because he will compromise to the point of angering the very same people who are singing his praises now. He is a token conservative at best. He isn’t a movement conservative and will only waste valuable time.
Now, I won’t say this because I believe in both approaches. It is sad you are more willing to attack those who are fighting with you because you don’t understand or agree with their tactic. Remember who the enemy is.
Whose your favorite, regardless of electability or chances?
There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think states or individuals have a right to allow the selling guns that kill our children.
There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think states or individuals have a right to allow injesting dangerous substances.
There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think individuals have a right to eat too much and become obese and cause massive health care costs.
There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think states or individuals have a right to drive SUVs that cause global warming.
There is nothing pro-life, intellectually or in practice, about those who think states or individuals have a right to [insert cause here, liberal or conservative]
Beware the federal beast, EV. It never does just one side's bidding.
I don’t believe this, but I really suggest you come back tomorrow after sleeping on this and re-read your posts and the rebuttals.
Yes, Viguerie in 1981 claimed that Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet choices “gave conservatives the back of the hand” and that President Reagan had allied himself with “the liberals, the Democrats and the Soviets” and that “the emperor has no clothes on; just about every conservative I know is now acknowledging it.”
Viguerie did important work in the Conservative movement, but he is sort of Perot-style paleo-populist more than a true conservative imo.
So EV, do you believe in the federalization of all crime? Or just all murders?
As soon as Viguerie gets his “let in on the action”....”dipping the beek”....”get a nic”...”a little carry around money”...He will be FDT’s biggest supporter...
“But, there’s plenty there to prove that he thinks the states have the right to have legal abortions.”
Wrong again... you have twisted a statement to mean something he didn’t say...
He said Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. That would automatically return it to a states issue.
Then he said he wouldn’t be in favor of dictating how each state chose to deal with the issue. This is the most conservative of positions, giving the states their proper authority. But his voting record is solidly pro-life and anti-abortion, which you choose to ignore completely.
Then Hannity cut off his next statement and you are unable to demonstrate how that statement ended, though you proceed to imagine how it might have ended, again in opposition to his record.
On this basis, you “interpret” Thompson to be saying something that he didn’t say and his record would counter-indicate.
If you do it without proper knowledge, it’s just foolish. But if you repeat the lie once notified, then it is intentionally misleading.
See, you misunderstand. Overturning Roe is an admirable goal. A necessary thing. Fighting state by state against the holocaust of abortion is a good thing. Many of us have been doing that for a very long time.
However, to abandon the recognition of the personhood of the unborn child, on every inch of American territory, is to give away everything. Without this recognition, all is lost.
The war to end abortion must be fought on every front. The Presidency. The Congress. The Courts. The States. The minds and the hearts of the American people.
All who raise their right hand and swear to protect and defend the Constititon are swearing to uphold its most fundamental principles before anything else. And nothing is more foundational than the God-given, unalienable right to life.
To abandon the Fourteenth Amendment argument in the Reagan platform is to remove the only plausible reason for overturning Roe in the first place. The orginal Roe judges made it clear that if the child was considered a person, they were to be accorded Fourteenth Amendment protection. Go read Roe yourself if you don’t believe me.
But, even if through brute political force it were overturned apart from this central argument, there would still be nothing standing in the way of states continuing the slaughter, or another court simply reinstating Roe.
Far too many who call themselves pro-life are not thinking this through, and are carelessly, unthinkingly, tossing aside the central intellectual, legal, and moral arguments against abortion in America, and against Roe vs. Wade.
Gosh. I’d never have expected a post like that from you. I really think you know better.
LOL!
Paul or Hunter, in no particular order and I’d like to see Tancredo as the Homeland Security Czar.
I would never vote for Gulianni, or McCain. I have major concerns about Romney and Thompson (who I loved initially) makes me feel like he’d be jorge all over again. Although I don’t think Thompson is as weak minded as Bush I still have concerns with who would be advising him.
No, of course not. But, the federal government's primary purpose for being is the protection of unalienable rights, of which life is the preemiment right. No state has a right to legalize murder, to outlaw free speech, free association, religious freedom, to legalize slavery, etc. That's why we have a Union.
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.