Posted on 09/30/2007 4:14:53 AM PDT by Man50D
I am glad I am not alone in my decision to never vote for Fruity Rudy.
You can spot the Hannitized posters a mile away. “Most important issue of our time” or “defining issue of our time” indeed. This is nothing more than Hannity codespeak. It boils down to one thing. Hannity has been behind Rudy from day one, and you lemmings are allowing him to define the most important issue for you.
As for me, nothing...and I mean nothing...could hold greater importance than protecting completely innocent and helpless little babies. Radical Islam doesn’t scare me. If we can’t put a stop to the wanton murder of our own citizens, then what’s the point of preserving the nation?
I think that's what Dobson is trying to do.
I am VERY suspicious of these “GOP split” votes comming out at this point of the PRIMARY race. We just now had the financial reports, we have new polls comming out and we show the race focusing on the top level candidates.
These “split” stories are BS because they seem to have been canned and recycled form 2006, 2004, 2002, and 2000. We have seen them ALL before.
It is also why I am suspicious of the persistant “Federalism” stories about Fred Thompson as to the Federal Marriage Amendment in light of the most recent court cases. (like quoting the Dred Scott decision in order to attack voter ID laws)
The MSM is working overtime to spin dissent.
They could just take out a one page ad in the NYT and write “GOP DOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!”. I hear they give discounts if they think someone is cute.
Allow me to make the point with a wordy quote:
From So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish by Douglas Adams:[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]
"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
So what do _you_ think the long-term result of voting for evil is? even if you only vote for the lesser one?
Your Statement - “So the seemingly shocking idea of the state being in blood and murder is anything but. Frankly what is the difference between the state and abortion and the fact that millions of responsible couples do not even have children because they are so taxed they can little afford them?”
My Responce -
This comment is so outrageous that I don’t even know where to begin in responding to it. If you believe that there is no difference between couples choosing not to have children and dismembering a living innocent child then I am ashamed that you call yourself a Republican. If you simply want a strong leader who has no regard for morality but is anti-communist, fiscally conservative, and will support a strong military then you should have lived in 1932 and voted for Hitler. Fortunately, most Republicans do see that the murder of innocent is a horrible unjustice - I fear what our nation would become if more people were to adopt your views.
Anyone who was moderately pro-life would have voted the way Fred did on restrictions on Government Funding, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and other such restrictions. He didn’t face any votes which were more controversial and he did nothing to correct the media reports at the time which actually indicated that he was basically pro-choice. So, I think the best view of the evidence is that he is strongly federalist and marginally pro-life. If he started to campaign heavily on this issue he might be able to change my mind but so far I have seen no evidence that he cares about this issue all that much.
That was a great book.
"the bug-zapper thread"? :)
If most strident pro-life advocates were not so repellingly absolutist they could expand their support base and could well achieve most of their objectives.
You are a perfect example of why that isn’t so.
You need to read deeper.
Hitler was very pro children. He was not a fiscal conservative and ran the printing press and more imprudently issued foreigner bonds he could no longer pay the interest on. He then invaded to physically bring goods and labor that he could no longer borrow to pay for.
I am not aware of any Republican state that doesn’t allow abortion, although many require seat belts and no smoking. I guess that can give you a idea as to your delusions about the feelings of Republican masses and what they get done. As far as abortion in the Republican party, it is the same as fiscal restraint. All talk and no action.
Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
Look at the keywords...
Cheers!
“I’m not sure you realize how alienated the libertarians and Blue Dogs are from the socons.”
Indeed. I know someone whose family all the way back to Roosevelt was pure Republican, including a grandmother who HATED FDR. And in spite of being believers they are not a family of ‘social conservatives’ in that sense.
His problem (and mine) with socons is that they do not propose to merely defend in the social arena decent people from the depredations of immoral or anti-Christian leftists. No, they instead seek to IMPOSE their order on all of us, be us believers or no.
This will shock them but there are a lot of Republicans who feel the Marriage Amendment is a horror because it’s an attempt to modify the Constitution on what is a relatively minor issue in comparison to the growing power of the State (and indeed, this would be an extension of that power and an unnecessary one) and most of them are very much pro-WoD, probably the greatest single contributor to the erosion of our liberties (aside from socialist dogma penetrating the academy, schools and media, of course) in the last 30 years.
They also don’t realize that there are a host of Christian-friendly people who are not Christian (or we try to be until they drive us away) and plenty of libertarian-types who ARE believers but don’t believe every law on this earth should be an attempt to bring Paradise.
Many of them are waaay too supportive of earthly authority and thus they cannot see the myriad ways in which we are descending into tyranny, nor would they care, SO LONG as it’s THEIR brand.
For many of us, abortion and homos are just not the defining issues of our time. Honestly, even a pro-life person can be against legislating the issue (or on limits to such legislation, as I am) because the REAL issue is the mother—NOT the law. Change the society, change mothers and the approach to life, force doctors to disclose alternatives, just as they do for even the most simple procedures (the doctor gave me alternatives to a CORTISONE SHOT!) and defend your beliefs in the arena of ideas, not by doing the same thing the leftists have done—which is legislating freedom of thought away.
It doesn’t help that many of us feel the socons are cut from the same cloth as the people who condemned Elvis and his swaying hips and interracial marriage.
Post 263 - agreed.
There was more than 18,000 posts on it!
I agree. From my experience on threads even referring to abortion, I don’t get the feeling that I could ever work on the same side as the pro-lifers because they are so absolutist.
It used to be the ‘quickening’ was considered the cut-off point and abortion has been with us since the beginning. Their real argument is with the potential mother, not with the laws, which as has been shown with anti-gun and anti-drug laws cannot be fully enforced. And what will we do? Start jailing women who took the morning after pill?
The other part I find hilarious is how many think the birth control pill is a tool of murder or how a pill that prevents fertilization or of the egg from taking to the lining is EQUIVALENT to lining babies up and shooting them.
They make the same mistake as the pro-abortion side. By putting their weight behind partial birth abortion, they probably drew others closer(philosophically) to a pro-life side.
I have, myself, gone from one extreme to another on this issue and that is likely because it is far more complex because there seem to be different benchmarks in a human life’s development. I do not and will never consider a recently fertilized egg to be on the same plane as a baby just born or a 10 year old or 40 year old man.
But by engaging in the name-calling and the rejection of secular pro-lifers, they ensure that the potential recent advantages they’ve gained in the debate are squandered.
I’ve personally seen far more people in the last 5-7 years give real thought to pro-life positions and demonstrate horror, sadness or some hesitation on the abortion issue than I saw in my younger years.
And some of us think that a Constitutional Republic which, at its inception, did not totally ban abortion or view it as the defining issue of their time, is more important than JUST solving this one problem.
Brazil banned abortions and they still have one million + a year. Fat good it does us to outlaw abortion if it doesn’t go away, other than give some the path to executing abortion doctors and women.
dobson’s a moron.
hello, hillary!
But yet it is as if the pro-lifers missed the whole meaning of the Reagan revolution and the many years since. They admit to state failure in most everything, and yet they have this religious faith in state power. You can almost see them, hands to ears saying, “I don’t want to hear it.” Which is very much like talking to leftist about state failure. They are in a belief zone and that is it. (Maybe that is why secular leftist states treat their political opponents much like religious zealots do.) These pro-lifers should, as I am sure many do, follow Jesus on another path and leave the glittering and echoing palaces of Caesar. p>
Specifically, what should he have done?
If he started to campaign heavily on this issue he might be able to change my mind but so far I have seen no evidence that he cares about this issue all that much.
Perhaps we should be letting him know this issue is important to us and see how he responds.
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.