Posted on 01/13/2008 1:51:13 PM PST by wagglebee
It’s time for the protesters to take on Romney as well. The only difference between Rudy and Willard is that Willard lies more.
How about respecting our Founding Fathers intent of the First Amendment, and allow the issue to be debated?
Somehow, I think people who have a brain can differentiate the message and the messengers. That is, after all, why we each have a brain and are encouraged to independently think.
Surely you don't believe that BS, or you would believe that folks with a brain would be able to differentiate between the two side of the abortion issue. You don't think they can, you think they are weak brained, and will choose Rudy's side.
That's why you shout. That's also why Code Pink shouts. You are indistinguishable from Code Pink.
No....it wasn’t mentioned...but it happens alot now...I was just asking your opinion....it seems we lose many of our rights by not recognizing the the “little†steps taken against them...for the good of the people of course (sarc/off)
off topic but a great example is up here in Maine...our Dem governor made all “private clubs” take a vote on a smoking ban...Our Private Veterans Club mailed Ballots to all members....the actual vote was 82 in favor of smoking...43 against....HOWEVER!...the ballots that were not returned were counted as a non smoking vote!..(The Dept of human services set up the “rules” of the vote)...thus a non vote changed the rules...scary..huh?
Didn't you get the memo? Independent thinking is to be frowned upon. One must listen to the MSM and other propaganda machines and get in line behind the sheep. Others know what is best for you -- now quiet down and obey! ;-)
You are indistinguishable from the characters in Animal Farm who think that some people are more equal than others.
The Founding Fathers did not write the Bill of Rights to protect politicians from the people, rather, the Bill of Rights were written to protect the people from those who would govern them.
Smart argument! Pro-lifers should act as badly as the other guy!!
/s
lol!
I’m not about ready to “heel click” now or in my future. : )
How do you know who or what I do or do not defend in real life?
Oh, I forgot. You’re god.
That is how we are losing many of our rights, yes, incrementally...always for our "own good," of course.
the ballots that were not returned were counted as a non smoking vote!..
But of course; that is how the fascists operate....
Yes.
The sad part is this thread got started with some people observing that, in their view, these protests were counter-productive to the cause of life.
This was then met with accusations that, simply because the posters disagreed with the means of moving toward a certain end (advancing the pro-life agenda), there were therefore pro-abortion, Rudy supporters, liberals, peons and so on.
Liberals also do that.
Fanantical, wacko behavior is fanatical, wacko behavior and is perceived as such, regardless of the message being promulgated.
Selling your position is more than half the battle. If pro-life activists continue to make spectacles of themselves, abortion will remain legal for a long, long, time.
What works is grass roots activism, winning new pro-life converts through education and public awareness. Then you start to activate at the local political level to create the changes necessary. All politics is local. Rally behind pro-life candidates, judges, etc. The only way to do this is to create critical mass, and operate through local organizations, and the political and judicial process.
Wagglebee, when are you going to realize that this has nothing to do with Rudy Giuliani?
I stated from the beginning that I thought these protests were counter-productive to the pro-life cause. And that’s what I meant and all I meant.
You can freep Rudy Giuliani until he drops off the face of the planet for all I care. I just don’t think these types of protests on the issue of abortion-—whether they are lodged against Rudy or anyone else-—in the context of an election do anything to truly educate or persuade people.
I just don’t think they work well when the MSM is so spun-up in election mode and I think they are quite liable to be used against the pro-life movement.
How you turned that into a pro-Rudy sentiment, I’ll never know.
Ping.
You really dont want to stop abortion do you ??????
How many babies has that saved so far???
How do you know who or what I do or do not defend in real life?
Oh, I forgot. You’re god.
_____________________________________________________
I see you insult my God too, as well as me....
Nice going Mr Holier-than-thou....
I’m the one your crowd told to shut up and accused of being a bigot and anti-immigration because I called my senators every day to tell them I wanted them to vote NO on the AMNESTY Bill...
It didnt work then and you wont shut me up now...
I cut my teeth as an activist on the abortion issue and you are 30+ years too late...
Kate O'Beirne of National Review wrote the following. If her facts are wrong, please tell me.
By: Kate O'Beirne National Review
Monday, Jan 29, 2007
"For decades, pro-life activists have been in the business of winning hearts and minds to their cause. Powerful arguments about the humanity of the unborn have moved public opinion, and a pro-life political force has made ambitious politicians feel the heat, whether or not they see the light. Pro-lifers' faith in the power of persuasion has been rewarded, and their political clout increased, by important converts, including Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Mitt Romney has also changed his position on abortion, but some social conservatives argue that membership in their ranks should be closed to this most recent convert with presidential ambitions.
"In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a liberal abortion law, declaring, 'I'm fully sympathetic with attempts to liberalize the outdated abortion law now on the books in California.' Reagan later changed his mind and expressed regret for signing a measure that saw more abortions performed in California than in any other state before Roe v. Wade. He became a committed pro-life politician and backed the first pro-life plank in the Republican platform. George W. Bush ran as a pro-choice politician in his 1978 congressional campaign, but held pro-life views when he ran for the governorship of Texas in 1994. His father too once favored abortion rights, but took a pro-life position in the 1980 presidential campaign.
"When Sam Brownback was running in a GOP congressional primary in 1994, he initially rebuffed a pro-life group's endorsement, according to a recent account in The New Republic. In that article, a former president of Kansans for Life recalls that Brownback was 'unfamiliar with the anti-abortion lexicon' 20 years after Roe v. Wade, and that Brownback described himself as 'more in line with the view of Nancy Kassebaum,' the state's pro-choice junior GOP senator.
... "During his gubernatorial campaign, [Mitt Romney] won the endorsement of the abortion-rights group Republican Majority for Choice. But three years later, the group's co-chairman declared, 'We feel very betrayed.' The reason was that Governor Romney had vetoed a bill that would have allowed access to emergency contraception – the 'morning-after pill' – without a prescription. Romney had also vetoed an embryonic-stem-cell-research bill; and last year his administration issued regulations banning the creation of embryos for research purposes, calling such research 'Orwellian in its scope.'
"In an opinion article that appeared in the Boston Globe, Romney defended his veto of the emergency-contraception bill. He explained, 'The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.' He faulted the bill for not requiring parental consent before allowing minors access to the pill. And he wrote, 'I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.' ...
"Romney has been stating his abortion position with the conviction of a convert, in terms that can appeal to a broad audience. Many social conservatives are persuaded that his conversion is genuine."
I thought you were not approaching this issue in terms of what people are "allowed" to do. Or . . . ??
Seems to me all you are pontificating about is what people are "allowed" to do and how it is their "right" to do it. Certainly that's what this quote is all about.
Moreover, your statement is complete BS. This entire forum is about discussing what we think people should do, how they should act, and how and when they should or should not protest or show political support or opposition.
It is indeed our place and right (or, as you said, our "PLACE OR RIGHT") to comment on whatever we see fit to comment upon, and to comment in such a way as to offer criticism as well as support.
It's no different from blasting the Dixie Chicks. Yes, they had to right to say what they said. We had the equal right to blast them for saying it.
What a load of self-righteous and immature hooey.
Disagreeing with someone's conduct (here the conduct of a particular protest) is not telling them "what to do, how to act, or when to protest."
(Maybe I should say it like this for you: Disagreeing with someone's conduct is NOT telling them "WHAT to do, HOW to act, or WHEN to protest.")
It is simply exercising one's own right to say what one thinks. (One's OWN right to say what ONE THINKS.)
That's an even cooler concept.
If you realy believe that I guess you are planning to vote for Duncan Hunter...
And if so say so...
No one disputes that, certainly not me.
Why do you find the intent of the Founding Fathers First Amendment so offensive?
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.