Fred Thompson's South Carolina TV ad!

You Tube ^ | 1-14-08 | Fred Thompson

[Onerom99]

Fred Thompson's South Carolina TV ad!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RKtaIjLFLc

[Robbin]

I have a question, show me in the bible where it says STOP PREACHING AND SAVING SOULS AND GO WIN VOTES. A man called to preach by god, has found a higher calling, trying to get my vote instead of saving my soul. And you would vote for that man? I’ve seen members of my own family forsake all to answer the call to preach, I’ve never seen one forsake the call to preach, to answer the call of politics!

So, at what point should a preacher walk away from gods calling, and when he does so, is he still doing gods work?

[HerrBlucher]

Fred just isn't pro-life by any definition

What horsecrap. Fred has a 100% pro-life voting record that is out there for all to review, and review they have, and the pro-life groups have endorsed Fred. Fred is a federalist as has been explained many times over on FR, and believes that overturning Roe v Wade is the quickest way to save the unborn. The pro-life groups understand this and so they endorse Fred, and NOT mitt, huck, or juan.

You can post all you want that Fred is not pro-life, but the evidence of his VOTING record proves otherwise. By now you know Fred's voting record on abortion. Therefore you are simply lying.

[HerrBlucher]

Here is Fred’s pro-life voting record. You are clearly lying when you say Fred is not pro-life.

Fred Thompson on Abortion
• Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)

• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

• Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

• Voted against abortion (December 7, 1995)

• Voted for ban on Partial Abortion December 7, 1995)

• Voted yes on a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions. (November 8, 1995

• Votes Yes on overriding veto of the President of the U.S.?; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 (September 26, 1996)

• Voted yes to prohibit the use of funds for research that utilizes human fetal tissue, cells, or organs that are obtained from a living or dead embryo or fetus during or after an induced abortion. (September 4, 1997)

• Voted yes dewine amendment no. 936; To prohibit the use of funds the pay for an abortion or to pay for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans that provide coverage for abortions (July 22, 1997)

• Voted yes on ban of Partial Birth abortion (May 20, 1997)

• Voted No daschle amdt no. 289; To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the performance of an abortion where the fetus is determined to be viable. (May 15, 1997)

• Voted no Feinstein amdt no. 288; To prohibit certain abortions. (May 15, 1997)

[samtheman]

The implication of your post was that in the upcoming election, being a senator is a handicap to winning the election.

I was just pointing out how absurd that reasoning might end up being in this election.

If it’s senator vs. senator (and it might very well be that), then your “50 year example” proves nothing. Absolutely nothing. It doesn’t apply. Not even a little bit.

[Eroteme]

Thompson says he was “largely stymied” during these investigations by witnesses declining to testify; claiming the right not to incriminate themselves or by simply leaving the country.

And what part of that don't you understand? You'd have Thompson disallow the 5th amendment and force them to testify under threat of...what? And Thompson should have personally chased them down on the tarmac with Dog Chapman? As appealing a picture as that is, this is still the United States of America, and the rule of law trumps your election year fantasies about how Fred Thompson should have/could have single-handedly taken down the entire Clinton/People's Republic of China crime syndicate.

[2111USMC]

Nobody’s listening to your tripe so your talking to yourself?

[mbraynard]

Opposition to mass murder is your reason to tolerate mass murder. Brilliant.

[mbraynard]

I completely agree with you.

[mbraynard]

Fred is as pro-choice as Rudy Guiliani. Both think Roe v Wade was a mistaken decision. Both would be fine with the decision left to the states and both support states keeping it legal.

Here you go: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kTQxoXD-scw

Listen to his answer when he starts to bring up the pro-choice arguments. 'I have never been for a law to criminalize for a young woman...'

It's pretty clear what he is saying before that nitwit Hannity steps all over him.

As for his voting record, he was voting, in his mind, against federal spending. He's also incorrect when he says he has a 100% pro-life voting record - check the NRLC's own rankings.

Besides, how pro-life can you be when you lobby for abortionists? Please.

[mbraynard]

Is it a little odd that despite what he wrote and despite what he has says, because you can point to a few pro-life votes it means that Thompson is pro-life, but you can't do the same thing for Mitt Romney? I mean - we have it in Fred's own handwriting - handwriting he pretends to have forgotten, along with lobbying he doesn't remember.

I guess he really is trying to be like Reagan but not in the right ways.

[jwparkerjr]

The surest way the next president can support the pro-life cause is with Supreme Court nominations. No other course is as close to success, period. A constitutional amendment is a long shot and fraught with many dangers along the way.

The entire 2008 presidential campaign could be waged on a single item and that’s the candidate’s pledge to appoint conservative judges. Much of what ails out great country today is the result of judicial activism.

Granted, there’s no guarantee any one person could appoint someone who would turn out to be what was expected, but there’s certainly a better chance a Clinton or Obama nominee would be liberal.

Public education has so dumbed-down the understanding of how our government works that the majority of voters have no idea just how decisive this election will be to the future of America. The next president will make critical appointments at all levels of the federal judiciary, none more critical than those to the SCOTUS.

And the president will have to be someone with the ability to stick to his guns and see a nomination through the confirmation process. The Democrats are going to do everything in their power to prevent a nominee that meets the conservative’s approval can’t be confirmed. In the end it could mean even having to shut down the federal government unless and until a nominee gets an up or down vote on the Senate floor.

Not only will this be one of the nastiest presidential elections any of us have seen in our lifetime, the next term for a Republican president will be hell on earth.

[mbraynard]

Wait wait - this one is even better. Fred Thompson: Pro Choice and Proud of It!

See - one candidate in this race has the balls to say he was wrong and that he has changed. Another is lying about his past and not admitting that he hasn't changed. Guess which one you are supporting, princess?

[HerrBlucher]

You can lie and deny all you want but Fred’s pro-life record speaks for itself, that is why most of the major pro-life groups have endorsed Fred and not mitt juan or huck.

In the case of Mitt, here is one reason he has not been endorsed by pro-life groups:

KEY ASPECTS OF ROMNEY’S MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH CARE PLAN...

(1) Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney’s legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney’s plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm )

(2) Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions . Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: http://www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf )

Got that? NO PRO LIFE GROUP INCLUDED AND $50 ABORTIONS, no wonder they don’t like Mitt and will not endorse him.

[mbraynard]

That is a clear lie regarding abrtion and MassHealth. Everyone knows it. Even you know it.

So please figure out who you are going to get behind next Wednesday when Fred endorses McCain.

[HerrBlucher]

LOL! You call that vid evidence that Fred is pro-choice? Ridiculous. Fred is simply arguing Federalism. With respect to his statements regarding not criminalizing women for getting abortions, name one pro-life group, or even any of the pro-life candidates including Mitt,(and give a link), that believes that women should go to jail for abortions. Fact is, none do, so your point is completely moot.

[HerrBlucher]

That is a clear lie regarding abortion and MassHealth. Everyone knows it. Even you know it.

Well, the proof is in the pudding and the pudding is Romney care. If you think its a lie, make your case otherwise your just pissing in the wind.

[mbraynard]

He clearly said it should not be illegal and that it was a decision between a doctor and the woman.

So seriously - who are you going to vote for? Huck? Ron Paul?

Too bad he doesn't feel as strongly about Federalism when it comes to campaign finance reform (McCain-Feingold-Thompson).

[mbraynard]

Do you really not know the truth about this? Do you really need to explain to me that everything you've been cutting and pasting from your favorite hate-romney site is a lie?

Really? In all honestly, really?

[restornu]

What’s with that bobbing the head all the time?

This bobbing has always bothered me.

Think of yourself as the Alpha Male.

If you think this way you will show it in your body language. You will walk tall and straight. You will suck in your gut.

You will also refrain from flinging your arms around or bobbing your head too much. Your body language shows that you are in control.

http://www.linkroll.com/body-language/how-men-can-use-body-language-in-flirting.php

[Bob]

The answer is because they picked wrong, like most people on FR, and didn't recognize that 1% Fred doesn't take them as seriously as he takes them.

Yeah, they also got him wrong by giving him a 100% rating for his service in the Senate over two terms. BTW, while Fred has gotten a 100% rating, Mitt has, in his own words, "strongly supported a woman's right to choose".

If you insist on being a single-issue voter, you should at least educate yourself a bit. Mitt has changed his pro-life/pro-choice 'principles' several times.