So, on that basis alone, you can be called a "shill" for whatever candidate that YOU support. Thank you. I won't call you that, for the reasons that I posted previously, but at least you'll have met your own definition given your ignorance of Mitt Romney's actual record.
Mitt's actual record (which you've been silent about, other than to refer to it nebulously as a "reason" why other shills also support Romney), is not very good on abortion issues (which, btw, are not completely contiguous with the more ill-defined "life issues" spoken of by people with poor records on abortion).
I have not been silent about Romney's record. I guess, by the definition you're using for being "silent" about it, you've also been silent as you've failed to back up your assertions that Romney's record is pro-abortion. You simply give nebulous statements saying that he's not trustworthy on the abortion issue while saying that his actual record is the most important determining factor.
No, you are a shill because you falsely portray (whether intentionally or because you have on blinders, I will not render an opinion) Mitt's position(s) on abortion. Likewise, you falsely attack FDT on the issue, using verifably false claims.
I've falsely portrayed nothing. Are you implying that Dr. Jack Willke is also falsely portraying Romney's record? Is Dr. Willke a "shill" now because he disagrees with your assessment of Romney's record? This man has dedicated his life to the pro-life cause and is now staking his invaluable reputation on Romney yet you're going to disregard it and call Dr. Willke a "shill!!?"
Case in point would be your claim that FDT voted for some anti-life amendment to a bill back in 1995 (which you tried to use to "prove" that FDT doesn't have a "100% pro-life record). I disproved your assertion quite handily, something to which you never bothered to respond.
For one, your link here in this thread does not point to what you think it points to. Second, some of the links in the post where you think that you disproved something are expired and don't point to anything. But, most importantly, you were wrong in that post (which I did find through a little searching) because Roll Call #369, to which I was referring, WAS another vote on keeping FEHB funds from paying for abortions. It was a Committee vote to strip lines 10-17 from page 76 of the legislation, which would have removed that language allowing payment for abortion services. If you would actually read the Congressional Record on the matter you would see that. Your claims that you disproved anything are what is verifiably false.
And I was NEVER asserting that Fred Thompson was anything other than a pro-life candidate. What I've been asserting and will continue to assert is that he doesn't have a 100%, perfect pro-life in the Senate. People here want to demand that he does, but they're wrong. I back up my assertions with the solid facts that the premiere pro-life organization in America - the National Right to Life Committee - did NOT give him a 100% rating AND I did find one amendment on which he did not vote the pro-life position. Instead he voted with all but 5 of the Democrats and a bunch of RINOs like Jeffords, Spector, etc. There may be others, but I'm sure that it is an extremely rare occurrence. Continuing to demand that Thompson has a perfect, 100% pro-life record - despite seeing the facts that he doesn't - meets your own definition of being a "shill".
Does Mitt Romney have a 100% pro-life record? No. Does Fred Thompson? No. Did Mitt Romney answer some pro-choice groups' questionnaires in a manner which did not assert a pro-life position? Yes. Did Fred Thompson do the same? Yes. Neither candidate is perfect on the issue. That's all I've been trying to claim, your false claims, aspersions and namecalling notwithstanding.
ROFLMAO....
Man, Spiffy, you need to unglue your lips from Mitt's special underwear.
Mitt went to the pro-abortion groups, met with them seeking their endorsement, and pledged his support for their agenda, for Roe v Wade, for legal abortion, and for government funding of abortion.
"....a manner which did not assert a pro-life position" .... wow, that's just pathetic.
I will be posting some links detailing Mighty Mitt's ACTUAL record on abortion below. Needless to say, it's quite different from the anti-abortion crusader you seem to be trying to portray him as, which means your opinion of Mitt is based on either ignorance or dishonesty. That makes you a shill.
I have not been silent about Romney's record. I guess, by the definition you're using for being "silent" about it, you've also been silent as you've failed to back up your assertions that Romney's record is pro-abortion. You simply give nebulous statements saying that he's not trustworthy on the abortion issue while saying that his actual record is the most important determining factor.
Fine, let's talk about Mitt's record on abortion.
Human Events Magazine in 2005 listed Mitt #8 among the Top Ten RINO's in the country, they note that he was quoted as saying, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country". His support for strict gun control and "civil unions" for gays was also noted.
There's also a whole gaggle of revealing quotes from various Massachusetts newspapers about Romney's positions on abortion, and social/moral issues in general. Among these quotes, we have:
Mitt's record on abortion is that he was pro-choice until he realised, around the middle of 2005, that being pro-choice would hurt his chances of winning the GOP nomination.
I've falsely portrayed nothing. Are you implying that Dr. Jack Willke is also falsely portraying Romney's record? Is Dr. Willke a "shill" now because he disagrees with your assessment of Romney's record? This man has dedicated his life to the pro-life cause and is now staking his invaluable reputation on Romney yet you're going to disregard it and call Dr. Willke a "shill!!?"
Since Dr. Willke appears to be either ignorant of or deliberately obfuscating Mitt's pro-choice record, then yes, Dr. Willke is a shill for Romney (though it should be noted that Dr. Willke's choice was apparently made because he suffers from UFOH (Unfounded Fear of Hillary) Syndrome.
For one, your link here in this thread does not point to what you think it points to. Second, some of the links in the post where you think that you disproved something are expired and don't point to anything. But, most importantly, you were wrong in that post (which I did find through a little searching) because Roll Call #369, to which I was referring, WAS another vote on keeping FEHB funds from paying for abortions. It was a Committee vote to strip lines 10-17 from page 76 of the legislation, which would have removed that language allowing payment for abortion services. If you would actually read the Congressional Record on the matter you would see that. Your claims that you disproved anything are what is verifiably false.
The only dead link in my previous post was the one that was supposed to go to the THOMAS list of amendments to H.R.2020 provided with the bill. Apparently THOMAS doesn't like such links, and allows them to expire. One can easily go to either of the other links (the two pro-life votes by FDT) and click on the bill number itself, then click on "Amendments" and see the list for themselves. The amendment you describe doesn't even APPEAR on that list, however. In fact, I've searched the Congressional Record and cannot find the language nor lines which you describe. Can you kindly provide a link to the text which contains the page and line numbers for verification (since the bill text, either HTML or PDF, seems to be unpaginated)?
And I was NEVER asserting that Fred Thompson was anything other than a pro-life candidate.
That's good, because unlike with Mitt, such an assertion would be blatantly false.
What I've been asserting and will continue to assert is that he doesn't have a 100%, perfect pro-life in the Senate. People here want to demand that he does, but they're wrong.
I don't demand that, and in fact, I would be highly surprised if he actually did have a 100% pro-life record from 1994-2001. Why? Because FDT does indeed appear to have gradually changed his position on this issue towards the pro-life side (as have MILLIONS OF OTHER AMERICANS, btw). The difference between FDT and Romney is that FDT seems to have changed his position over a number of years, while he was already elected and thus didn't have an "uh oh" reason for evolving on this issue. Mitt, on the other hand, appears to have suddenly (mid-2005) realised that he'd better get with the program if he wants to get nominated as the GOP presidential candidate. The former is a reasonable process of development, the latter is a crass political manueovre.
I back up my assertions with the solid facts that the premiere pro-life organization in America - the National Right to Life Committee - did NOT give him a 100% rating
Which is because they grade on other issues besides just abortion and "life issues". If you look at the actual NRTL scorecards for 1997-1998, 1999-2000, and 2001-2002, we see that each session, the only things they dinged FDT on was his campaign finance "reform" votes (which, admittedly, were very bad decisions). As far as actual, real, true-to-life abortion votes, he is 100%, per the votes they listed each session.
AND I did find one amendment on which he did not vote the pro-life position. Instead he voted with all but 5 of the Democrats and a bunch of RINOs like Jeffords, Spector, etc. There may be others, but I'm sure that it is an extremely rare occurrence.
I have yet to see that you've actually "found" anything here. And even if you did, as you pointed out, it is an "extremely rare occurrence", which manifestly CANNOT be said for Mitt Romney, at least prior to the middle of 2005.
Continuing to demand that Thompson has a perfect, 100% pro-life record - despite seeing the facts that he doesn't - meets your own definition of being a "shill".
I don't "demand" anything. I am extremely unconvinced that he doesn't have such, but I don't DEMAND that he have one. For reasons that have been previously discussed on threads on FR, there are any number of good reasons why a person might vote procedurally for a bad amendment - it's often a way of manipulating the timing of a vote so that a bad bill will be killed or an amendment stopped before it has sufficient momentum to pass. Such votes, even if made for a good procedural purpose, will still "look" bad on a scorecard.
Does Mitt Romney have a 100% pro-life record? No. Does Fred Thompson? No. Did Mitt Romney answer some pro-choice groups' questionnaires in a manner which did not assert a pro-life position? Yes. Did Fred Thompson do the same? Yes. Neither candidate is perfect on the issue. That's all I've been trying to claim, your false claims, aspersions and namecalling notwithstanding.
You are comparing apples with oranges. Mitt's public record, up until mid-2005, seems stridently pro-choice, and then he makes a sudden about face. It's not just that he "doesn't have a 100% pro-life voting record" or that he answered some questionnaire questions pro-choice. The point is that he CONSISTENTLY was pro-choice, until quite recently, and his about face appears to be politically motivated by the necessities of Republican primary politics. This cannot be truthfully said of FDT.