Posted on 09/19/2007 7:14:10 PM PDT by pissant
“Still waiting....tic....tic....tic....
Oh I guess you have no response just as you have no _____ to begin with.”
What on earth are you talking about?
You have it exact. First things first, overturn RVW, then push at the state levels.
It is telling that before RVW the pro-abortionists could gain no traction in states. Their only power comes via RVW. Without it they collapse.
From 1996:
Question: Please summarize your personal philosophy on the issue of reproductive choice
Thompson: The Supreme Court has attempted to delineate the constitutionally appropriate roles for individual and governmental decision-making on the issue of abortion. Beyond that, I believe that the federal government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/176554.aspx
From 1994:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5a_Fpu_8KE
The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.
From 1997:
I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2E0NGRiZTRmNTkzMTc4MzA2ZWIwMTNhNDRlZTg2NWE=
Why don’t you try doing some of your own research, ace. There are only a handful of people here still caliming that Fred has always been pro-life. Apparently you are one.
It’s easy to see by following the thread to post #568.
It’s so easy to see that your asking the question confirms the impairment.
Go ahead and continue to ignore the question.
Incorrect.
University: BA Philosophy and Political Science, Memphis State University (1964)
Law School: JD, Vanderbilt University (1967)
US Senator, Tennessee (1994-2003)
Congressional Staff Special Counsel, Senate Intelligence Cmte. (1982)
Congressional Staff Special Counsel, Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. (1980-81)
Tennessee State Official Special Counsel to Gov. Lamar Alexander (1980)
US Official Minority Counsel, Watergate Committee (1973-74)
US Attorney Assistant US Attorney (1969-72)
American Enterprise Institute
Council on Foreign Relations
Libby Legal Defense Trust Advisory Committee
National Film Preservation Foundation Board of Directors
Partnership for Public Service Board of Governors
Washington Legal Foundation National Board of Advisors
Young Republicans
Tennessee Bar Association (1967)
Watergate Scandal Senate Watergate Committee, Republican counsel
When has Billy Graham ever been involved in partisan politics? I thought Graham made it a policy to avoid partisanship so he could work with political leaders of both parties.
Not a bad day, just sick and tired of Dobson. I have not cared for this guy for years and I am frankly tired of his efforts at making himself relevant. And by the way, I see Dobson’s judgmentalism has had an effect on you...
By “us” do you mean Catholics?
Maybe because he voted 100% pro-life on every bill that affected right to life issues while he was in the US Senate, and got an A rating from National Right to Life and a Zero rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL for all his 7 years in the Senate?
Predictable response! Obviously you have no backup!
So try and turn it back on your challengers!
Back it up Pissant! If you had any credibility you would do so but you have ZERO credibility!
And that’s why you are not a good advocate for Hunter. He is an admirable candidate whereas you are a smearing con artist.
What are you talking about?
All laws are legislated morality!
I had a $100 check written to the Thompson campaign until I found out he supported CFR.
The check is in the shredder now.
Will Mormon's let Christians into their temples?
Nope.
Two sides to this coin.......
How? Observing that “Good Job, you irrelevant and pitiful excuse for a Christian!” is a particularly stupid thing to say to James Dobson?
A. Get back to me when you’ve done one millionth of the good Dobson has done families across America.
B. Get back to me when you can show to me, Biblically, how not supporting Fred Thompson invalidates one’s claim to be a Christian.
Read my PREVIOUS response to you, before you get the vapors again.
The theory behind trying to pass such an amendment takes into account the contemporary erosion of state's rights and voter's rights by the ACLU and the activist courts, which have been seeking to rule from the bench for 40 years and largely succeeding. Even though states have held referenda on the definition of marriage and overwhelmingly voted to retain the one-man-one-woman standard, a single Federal judge can and has struck down state referenda, the DOMA (federal Defense of Marriage Act) notwithstanding.
The theory is that the proposed amendment would have to circulate in all state legislatures over a three-year period in order to be ratified, which would force each state to confront and debate the question legislatively.
There has been hopeful movement in the direction of quashing judicial overreaching in the decision this week by the Maryland Supreme Court, which overturned an activist judge's attempt to hand down same-sex marriage from the bench. The opinion did not boil down to favoritism towards a definition of marriage, but noted that this question should not be determined by the judicial branch, but rather by the legislature.
It was not a clear-cut victory for the one-man-one-woman camp; but it was a hopeful step in placing the question before the representatives of the People.
Nope. You are a flippin liar, and lying about something you don’t even need to lie about. Man up a bit.
Your question would best be put to pollywog.
She’s comparing Dobson’s influence to Billy Graham.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1899326/posts?page=72#72
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.