Posted on 11/05/2007 7:42:06 AM PST by pissant
“I agree that this should be a state-level decision”
I’m sure someone has picked up on this already but here’s my two cents. Do you think beheading 5 year olds should be a state issue? No? Well that’s because you believe everyone has an inalienable right to life. If an unborn baby is a life, it certainly has inalienable rights. If not, no state has the right to tell a women what to do with her body.
To whom, Hilliary? She's not only pro-abortion, she would probably make Roe v. Wade into a Constitutional Amendment GUARANTEEING abortion on demand.
You've hit the nail on the head, really. Do you think we'll need such an amendment if activist judges begin allowing murder?
That's where we are now with abortion and euthanasia...
"Each state would make their own abortion laws?" Russert asked.
"Yeah," said Thompson. "But, but, but to, to, to have an amendment compelling -- going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go."
Wow! That sounds like our Founding Fathers could have said it!
Or even Ron Paul!
I am the same.
People might think I’m not by virtue of what I say here, but really it’s just basing my views on a few key items:
1. Reality
2. Federalism and the Constitution
3. Net effect - which basically means the best combination of electability and net effect on the issue when elected. Hunter might be “perfect” on abortion, and, while he’s a hell of a guy, he just isn’t going to win. Fred is damn good on the issue despite what some here say and I think he can win.
Please explain how Fred was showing his integrity and consistency when he voted for the federal partial birth abortion ban if he truly believes that federal restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional. At the end of the day Fred’s voting record shows that his opposition to the Human Life Amendment is not about principle but rather politics. His rhapsodies about Federalism are simply opiates for the masses.
Please show us, oh smart one, where exactly, FRed said that?
Tue Fred Hates Puppies
Wed Fred hasn’t sent his Mom a Christmas Card
Thur Fred’s underware are two sizes too small
Fri 9 out of 10 say they wont vote for a bald guy.
Sat Dozen illegals found in Freds trunk
I can understand that - me being a 2nd Amendment absolutist.
However, you've got to consider whether any other candidate who agrees with you has a snowball's chance in Hell of beating Hillary - because she ASSUREDLY doesn't.
There's no perfect candidate. Pick the one that is the least bad. When analyzing the Republican field and considering both policy positions and electability, FDT is the least bad one for me. Hunter may be better on the policy front (he is for me, anyway), but he's unelectable IMHO, so I can't support him.
“...all he had to do is leave it alone!”
And be a sissy panderer like Rudy Romney? I’m glad he told us he’s for giving states the right to disembowel babies. Now those “pro-lifers” who support him will have to make a decision: Do you remain pro-life or change to pro-choice in order to be hitlery?
There is quite a difference between the two men.
Giuliani might SAY he’d appoint “strict constructionist justices.” That’s fine and dandy, but if you look at who he appointed while mayor, most of them were more like Ginsburg than Scalia. Which means either:
A-he’s lying
B-his definition of “strict constructionist” is a hell of a lot different than mine
Thompson has been consistent on this view. He was the one who helped shepherd John Roberts to the SCOTUS. Says a lot more for who he’d appoint.
Within the limits of the Presidents power, he is 100% pro-life. More so than Bush actually. Bush, using a simple EO, could end Federal Funding for abortion providers. He hasn't...
If you are looking for MORE, than you not only violate principle, you set up precedent. We've gotten to this point from too much of that exact mindset.
Yes. FDT was instrumental in ditching the GOP’s “Contract with America”, way back when, which disenfranchised it’s own conservative base. Since then we’ve pretty much had a one party system.
We true conservatives have had to watch the party lurch left ever since. If we’d had a brain among us, we’d have founded a second party then, and would be a formidable force today! Duncan Hunter would be the giant Conservative Party candidate to beat in 1980.
Duncan Hunter wears the white hat in this rodeo!The least we can do is make certain that he is the giant Conservative Republican to beat in 1980! Actually, Duncan Hunter transcends party to appeal to conservatives in all parties. If true conservatives unite and get behind Duncan Hunter in the primaries, we can win with him
in the general!
Thompson is returning the issue to the states back to where it should be. Even though I haven't committed to any candidate, I agree with his position.
The grass roots is where most of the social issues like abortion should be decided.
LOL!!!!!
Because FRed doesn't think a Constitutional Amendment to ban what isn't provided in the Constitution to start with, and promotes (properly) the rights of the States and the People, you wanna make an issue of that?
Get realistic, and join the 21st century and reality of the waste of time on second-tier/non-electable candidates.
Unreal, isn’t it? Anyone who truly wants to know what Thompson believes knows that he believes Roe v Wade should fall back to the states, and the federal government shouldn’t be involved. Oh, and he’s pro life.
I always hold to the addage that if you give a man enough rope he will hang himself. Fredheads take note!
Thompson’s “Read My Lips” moment
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.