Posted on 09/19/2007 7:14:10 PM PDT by pissant
My exact question as well.
Back it up pissant! Of course you can’t as you’ve gone down in flames over this many times before.
BullShiite. You are. By his very own words, and you know it, and you know it well.
You know, it’s a shame Billy Graham is not around to lend his support to Fred.
I cannot speak for him, but he was much more sensible than Dobson, IMO.
And ever so much more humble.
Federalism refers to divided powers-ie making sure one group or branch of government does not wield too much power.
The states have specific duties and rights.
The federal government have certain duties and rights.
Some duties are shared-like defending innocent human life.
Every public official has a duty to defend innocent human life.
Defending human life is not a federalist issue. It is the business of all of humanity.
Agreed. Billy Graham understands that man is an imperfect being, and is always striving to become one. Dobson wants perfection, when he himself is imperfect.
You’re lying again, piss ant.
There are a lot of us who do not oppose Thompson, but have a hard time getting enthusiastic about him. That is going to be a problem. We are going to need enthusiasm, both from the candidate, and from the base.
What’s that got to do with an amendment banning gay marriage?
Fred Thompson was the only contender to attend the Annual Catholic prayer breakfast. I think many of us like him.
Really? So, your position is that state courts are supposed to make new law?
Oh, yeah, I’m totally afraid of Duncan Hunter’s rousing success. His big win at that straw poll last month really put the fear of God into me. I know that he now has the momentum to surpass the top tier! He’s got the big MO!
Perhaps the constant need to remind people that Duncan Hunter is making no headway in the quest for this nomination is the fact that his supporters continue to pretend that the opposite is true...
Back it up pissant! It’s telling that you ignored my previous post above.
And this thread is just another of your obsessive smears of FDT based on a twisted logic that somehow it helps Hunter.
If I were Hunter I would have you silenced because you stain his reputation with your asinine smears.
He did not. He has admitted that prior to the birth of his children with Jeri that he was not a pro-life activist. Also, his eight years in the Senate were mostly focused on government reform and accountability.
Interesting fact to ponder: he first married at 17 and his first son was born 7 months later, back before Roe v. Wade was enacted. Surely his life must have contained many moments of reflection. He and his child bride wife stuck it out for more than 30 years until all the children were well grown before they parted ways; and he did not marry again until several years after his divorce. His ex-wife has gone on record in support of his candidacy. When his oldest daughter passed away in her 30s, he stepped down from the Senate and took time to mourn.
Therefore, this is a decent family man who has lived out his respect for family and life. He did not go into the Senate to be a "one-issue" crusader on abortion and get himself typecast and pushed aside like Santorum; hence he lived to fight another day.
As President he would have much more influence over the abortion question than he would have had fighting a losing battle when he was a Senator, first under Clinton and later under an embattled first-term Bush presidency and polarized Senate. Yet people here want to reject him as a 95% good-enough candidate because he is not, in their eyes, 100%.
The lessons of the last election cycle do not seem to have sunk in. This is politics, and in America, it involves compromise. People who will never compromise in order to make incremental improvements are extremists who end up losing.
Because he does have a 100% pro-life record, and specifically calls for the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
If Roe is reveresed, in most every state of the union, abortion would be seriously limited.
We could then work, from a grassroots level, to get further restrictions or bans in place.
That is how our Constitution is written; sorry it bothers you.
Maybe move to Venezuela where the President can just rule by edicts — it works so well.
Who is Dobson going to support, pro-abort Rudy, or flip-flopping Romney who has tried to cater to both sides of the abortion issue during his political career? One of those three is almost certain to be the GOP nominee, and even if Fred isn't wholly on board with the evangelical agenda he comes much closer than the other two.
Personally, I would much rather see Duncan Hunter in the White House than Fred, and since he is an evangelical Baptist I suppose Dobson would support him. But Hunter doesn't have a chance of being nominated, and even less chance of winning the general election if he somehow got the nomination. I would like very much to see Hunter as Fred's running mate, which would give him the national exposure and recognition that he needs to run for the top spot later on. But as of now I just don't believe that he has what it will take to defeat Hillary even if he could somehow win GOP nomination.
Still waiting....tic....tic....tic....
Oh I guess you have no response just as you have no _____ to begin with.
Very well said. We need someone who wants to make sweeping changes to the way things are done.
Um...one of the recipients forwarded it to the AP.
Gosh, what a stupid thing to say. Are all your comments like this, or are you having a bad moment?
This big issue here is does this signal some wavering of support for Thompson among the evangelical Christians. Thompson needs these people as part of the anti-Giuliani coalition. If Thompson doesn't stop Rudy, no one will and a Giuliani nomination is inevitable.
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.