Posted on 10/25/2007 12:23:47 PM PDT by SJackson
BLACK = DEATH WHITE = LIFE
Yea it's exactly that Black and White !
That is such a confusing analogy that I'd be tempted to vote for Lincoln, and let him sort it out. No Lincoln running this year, no Reagan either.
Clever--but it describes every single human being I have ever known including myself. I wonder what Rand was trying to prove.
BTW, was this before or after she had her affair with Nathaniel Brandon?
I thought the USSR was the empire of evil, but I didn't think it would be wise to nuke them. Does that mean I fail the anti-communist litmus test?
Grow up.
Two words: Supreme Court
This piece is pure evil trash.
Though activists attempt to corral presidential candidates, such as Rudy Giuliani, into a specific camp, beliefs today are much more nuanced. It’s no longer a black-and-white debate.
*barf*
Actually, there is. Folks are just too blinded to see it.
A circus was on a train in Lafayette, La. and an elephant died.
After the train got out of town, they kicked the elephant off the train into a pasture.
Buzzards feasted for days and the area began to be called Carencro, which is Cajun-French for buzzard.
Lets see, kill your child, or don’t kill your child.
Seems pretty black and white to me.
In U.S. politics, you can assume that any elected official will govern more pro-abortion that he advertisedf, but never the other way around.
“I oppose abortion,” Giuliani said. “I would like to see a society in which there’s no abortion. I think you have to get there by changing people’s minds and hearts. I’m not in favor of changing the law or the rights that presently we give. But I do think that I’m in favor of everything else that would limit the number of abortions, that would increase the number of adoptions and that would move us in a direction of many fewer abortions and if we could get to no abortions based on people’s decisions…I would be in favor of that.”
Both Clinton's have said basically the same things.
His rhetoric is to the right of the Democratic candidates. His record, especially on abortion, is more liberal than the average Democrat.
There is no reason to believe a adulterous flip-flopper with a liberal record just because he is a Republican any more than there was to believe Bill Clinton's attempt to pass himself off as a new Democrat.
Examples please
Giuliani wasn’t hiding behind the Hyde Amendment in that youtube video. He specifically said if anyone’s too poor to afford an abortion (or as he called it their “constitutional right”), they should have taxpayer funds.
Not talking rape, incest, or life of the mother. Lack of sufficient money.
It made a lot more sense when I wrote it. :-)
Suppose it was 1840, and you oppose slavery. Now, suppose there are two candidates running for office. One supports slavery, and believes that slaves that escape to free states must be returned to their owners.
The other candidate won’t fight to end slavery, because they believe it is a state’s rights issue, but support the rights of free states to emancipate slaves which enter their territory.
Which candidate do you vote for? I suggest you would vote for the candidate that supports emancipation, because while you won’t end slavery, you will at least free some slaves. The anti-Rudy argument (presuming Rudy is telling the truth), says you would stay home, because it would be immoral to vote for a candidate that didn’t support ending slavery.
However, you would obviously push for a candidate who was opposed to slavery. It’s only when you are left with two choices at the ballot box that the “best choice” applies.
If I was going to use this analogy to OPPOSE Rudy, I would argue that if you had elected a congress full of people who made slavery a states-rights issue, then even though you would free some slaves that managed to escape, you’d probably kill any chance of freeing ALL the slaves, since many people might figure they had done “enough”, and there might not be so much political pressure to finish the job.
BTW, many pro-life people currently push for the “states-rights” candidate, on the argument that abortion can be banned at least in some states if we get Roe-v-wade overturned and DON’T get a national law legalizing abortion.
But in the long run, many pro-lifers would reject the states-rights issue on abortion, just as they would reject it for slavery. Respect for life must be considered the basis for our country, and can’t be bargained on a state-by-state level.
In the end, we have a long way to go before we can get from a “constitutional right” to abortion, to a “constitutional law” banning abortion nationwide.
Our candidates span a range of support. Few are all the way there yet (not that we all agree on what “all the way” is, some for example support abortion to save the mother’s life, others not, while others add rape and incest, some say they are “pro-life” but define when life begins at different point (egg release, fertilization, implantation, brain pattern, heart beating, viability). Some pro-lifers treat embryos outside the womb different from those in the womb. Some oppose all but “natural” birth control, some support preventative but not chemical birth control, some support the pill, some support the morning-after pill.
My point is, our candidates span this continuum. If you picture a road, and we are standing at the current reality, every one of our candidates is down the road TOWARD our goal of stopping all abortion. Some are only a few steps down, some are way down, and depending on YOUR specific “pro-life” position, some are past the goal.
Meanwhile, the democrats are BACK the other way on the road.
So, if we want to move down the road, you could argue that until we reach the next “point”, ANY of our candidates would be better than the democrats who would turn us around. Once we reach, say, Rudy’s destination, we would need a better candidate. But that’s true of all — once we reach Fred Thompson’s destination, we would still need a stronger candidate to move toward the real goal of banning abortion.
If I didn’t think Rudy’s position HURTS us later on, I wouldn’t oppose him in the primaries on this issue. As it is, I oppose him, but have decided that I will probably vote for him, but not work for him, if he’s our nominee.
I RESPECT those who wouldn’t do that, so though I would argue that they are wrong, I won’t like some do attack them for following their principles. Peopls CAN have sincere differences, and be sincerely wrong.
With all respect, if Medved is defined as a “more deadly enemy” to conservatives, you might as well hang it up, because you are going to call your “conservatives” meeting and when you get to the door, you will probably have to reject yourself for something.
IN other words, your “group” of true conservatives is going to be mighty small if you throw out everybody who doesn’t think exactly like you do. And you will NOT win an election.
Reagan didn’t end his speeches by saying “and anybody who disagrees with me can just go to h*ll”. I’m guessing if he did, he wouldn’t have attracted people who disagreed with him to support him anyway for his resolve and character.
We can be exclusive in picking our candidates. Being exclusive in accepting support is a losing game.
I don’t know which candidate you think is like Reagan, so I don’t know which candidate to say “XXX is no Reagan”. But unless there’s some candidate I am unaware of, I’m pretty sure “XXX” will apply to any candidate you’d name.
BTW, in the END, while I disagree with his statement, it is true that we will never end abortion, and we will only curtail it to the point where we change the hearts and minds of people.
We can make it illegal, but it’s too easy to abort for us to stop people, especially with ready access to drugs that do the job. We could throw doctors in jail, but at some point if we haven’t convinced doctors to stop performing abortions, a LAW prohibiting it will be uneffective. If you end up with no doctors to deliver babies or provide other care, you won’t get public support to jail doctors, and if doctors keep arguing for abortion, you won’t get the strong majorities you need to pass the laws to make it criminal.
And if you don’t throw women in jail for it, you won’t stop them from getting abortions. But if you don’t change people’s hearts and minds, you will NEVER get a law that holds women responsible, because there is NO support for that today, even strong pro-life candidates run like the wind from any suggestion of that.
But, you are right, “Safe, Legal, and Rare” is a false claim that makes no logical sense. If there’s nothing “harmful” about abortion, why would you want it to be rare? If there IS something harmful, why wouldn’t you legislate to minimize that harm?
And if you really thought it should be rare, you’d give your time and money to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, not Planned Parenthood.
Of course, Bush has been a dissappointment in this regard, as he’s done nothing to educate the public on how bad abortion is. In fact, other than when they are asked the question, few of our candidates seem to have made educating the public on the horrors of abortion a part of their lives.
I would have loved to have seen the republicans submit a bill that would have spent as much money convincing people to NOT abort their children as the government spent on telling people to stop smoking.
I would have loved to have seen a tax on abortions to pay for such a program, just as we used a tax on cigarettes to pay for anti-cigarette advertising.
I’d love to see a lawsuit against abortion providers pushed by the state and federal government that would result in the abortion providers having to fund a major advertising campaign against their product.
But we see almost NO advertising telling us that abortion is wrong. We see tons of advertising about not doing drugs, about not smoking, even about not drinking and driving.
That’s what people do when they really oppose something, they speak out against it. I don’t see that in Rudy, and I don’t see much of that in most of our candidates.
This thread is a wonderful example of how the right is dying. We killed the GOP in about 96 or so, and now it is the whole conservative movement.
We eat our own on issues that don’t matter. Like, yes, abortion.
Enjoy Hillary. Maybe you guys will have fun but I won’t.
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.