Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 11/05/2007 7:42:06 AM PST by pissant
Any means necessary.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
I’ll vote for Fred if he wins. But this is only one issue that I strongly prefer Hunter’s position.
I’m not in this primary for Fred, only Hunter. So I’m willing and able to contrast those differences.
That’s NOT what he said, he said it is a state issue.
It should be “criminalized”.
What form of government do you want?
(P.S.-don't quote the "Representative Democracy" rhetoric; that's not the issue).
So long as the MAJORITY are electing the government (as provided by the U.S. Constitution, I might add), then arguing against "mob rule" is a red herring/whole cloth argument.
If the People are not allowed to govern, then you are living in some foreign country, (or one that has eroded from the Founders' principles).
I’m not ready to throw him under the bus, either. He still seems to be our best chance of getting a conservative elected. But this is the first time these charges have had something to work with, and he provided it.
He’s still better than Rudy by a country mile. And I think more reliable and trustworthy on this issue than Mitt.
I remember George Bush said, in his first campaign, that he supported abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Yet he has been the most active pro-life supporter we have had in office, with a better judicial appointment record than Reagan.
But Fred had better be careful, because he risks losing the Evangelical vote. Not over the constitutional amendment issue, but over this kind of stuff.
If I can choose 1 of the current candidates to be President, I'd choose Duncan Hunter...
If I can choose 1 person to win the GOP primaries, it's FDT (Romney's next)... Even if Hunter did win, which will NEVER happen- he'll get about 2% of the vote... he'd be creamed far worse than Dukakis...
If it came down to Rudy vs. Hillary, I'd gladly vote for Rudy over the beast.
I KNOW FRed is a Conservative, Christian, human FIRST.
-
you can say that about romney as well. Fred has lost his major advantage here and there are others that Romney has over fred. For example, experience, a marriage that people won’t make fun of...you do know what I’m talking about here, right?
“Thompson told host Tim Russert that he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that took the issue of abortion away from the states by declaring abortion a constitutional right. Thompson said he wants to keep abortion legal at the state level.”
To those on the pro-life side that are REALISTIC, this is the best that we can hope for at this point. I personally disagree with Fred on one point, I would want to criminalize abortionists performing the murder.
However, ANY rollback on abortion starts with overturning Roe. Any other plan is frankly delusional.
If a state makes it illegal, the law has to be enforced.
“Sometimes absolutionists need a swift kick in the ass from the foot of pragmatism.”
Well put!
Well, the way to handle that is to complain to Jim Robinson. It's his forum.
To do so, paste his name in the 'To:' window and blast away. Go for it.
And which candidate, besides Rudy, is not in full agreement with overturning RvW? None. So then you look at their position in total on the subject.
Well, he's right. I just looked up the 2004 Republican Party Platform: "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America." (.pdf format)
It's 92 pages of meaningless feel good, pie in the sky pap. Mostly praising Dubya for 'his' past legislation and for crap like throwing money away in Africa for fighting AIDS. AND what Russet quoted wasn't exactly correct. He was cherry picking a tiny part of page 84 (Promoting a Culture of Life). The part Timmy left OUT mirrored exactly, Fred's Profile Voting Record in the Senate.
In short, Fred was set up. Russert might as well have asked "When did you stop beating your wife".
And this 'Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief' is no better. This 'article' is bullsh*t gotcha tripe.
“It’s not a sense of the Senate.”, is just double-speak for a symbolic overture that will pacify the constituency leaving things to go on as they were. We ought to be doing all we can to rid our country of this inherent evil. That’s what it is, an inherent evil and we need to be calling it exactly what it is.
Not posturing, not doing what we think people will accept, but calling this exactly what it is, an inherent evil. Fred is wrong on this and we have to attack wherever we can, whenever we can. We can push for a constitutional amendment and push to overturn Roe Vs Wade. Sending it back to the states will require voting for or against abortion and even if abortion loses in that particular state, it will only be as good as the supreme court of that state. They can rule that denying a woman a right to a safe legal abortion is unconstitutional and we are right back at square one.
A supreme court would not attempt to rule a constitutional amendment, unconstitutional. Fred can throw out “states rights” when he gets stuck, and play shell games all he wants but that doesn’t mean we have to buy it. It’s an inherent evil, folks, and yes there should be a penalty. This has nothing to do with choice or constitutions, it’s an inherent evil thrust upon us by the SCOTUS. They made the rules of the game, not us. Fred can play “constitution” all he wants and believe whatever he wants. They made the rules and we have to fight fire with fire. This inherent evil was forced onto our country contrary to the constitution and I am for expelling it in the same way if that is what is necessary.
I am going to sound really shifty and deceptive here, but hey, we are talking about the left as our enemy with the lives of the innocent in the balance.
If we totally abandon the national fight, that’s a dead give away that we are up to something.
I think we need to keep up the pressure, but concentrate on the winnable battles to build our position.
I don’t care how we win, if it’s a flanking maneuver via the states so be it. Right now we are stalled. Any general would tell you to change tactics but do so with an eye to not letting the other guy know what you are doing as much as possible.
Like I said, I think that maybe Fred’s thoughts, it would explain his contradictory approaches (supporting partial birth then touting a federalist approach) but drawing it out is a mistake, it would tip his hand.
I have seen some saying that would make him a liar. No that would make him a politician that could get us the victory we need.
This isn't a game of monopoly here, this is a fight for the life of the unborn, and the enemy has no shame. If we really mean what we say, if life is the most important of all issues, it is time to shut up and get dirty, because war is not pretty.
I’m not in this primary for Fred, only Hunter. So I’m willing and able to contrast those differences.
And good for you. I feel the same about Hunter. But I see Fred as having more chance at nomination - by far. Thus, my support.
But if you think all this back-and-forth against Thompson is going to turn magically into a great level of Hunter support you're deluding yourself. And that's the problem you have.
This seems to go further than "it's a state decision." It seems to be saying that Fred thinks abortion should be kept legal at the state level.
What am I missing ... or what did he mean by this?
"People ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states," said Thompson. "Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we're going to outlaw this, that, or the other. And my response was, I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician."
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.