Posted on 03/11/2005 6:32:41 PM PST by Sola Veritas
Rice pointedly declined to rule out running for president in 2008 on Friday during an hour-long interview with reporters at WASHINGTON TIMES, top sources tell DRUDGE. Rice gave her most detailed explanation of a 'mildly pro-choice' stance on abortion, she would not want the government 'forcing its views' on abortion... She explained that she is libertarian on the issue, adding: 'I have been concerned about a government role'... Developing late Friday for Saturday cycles... MORE...
Dear DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet,
If you don't like my tone, again, my apologies. However, my attitude is more of amazement than condescension. I am amazed at the fantasy version of history presented by the poster. If this version were a bit more tethered to reality, perhaps my tone would be different.
As well, if the poster's misplaced anger aimed at an entire movement of good and decent people were a bit more muted, perhaps my tone might be different as well.
I know folks in the movement. They don't deserve this dreck.
My comments were the result of the poster generalizing the comments found by some posters herein to the entire pro-life movement, and then blaming the pro-life movement for a history that didn't actually occur.
The poster specifically blames lack of progress on the pro-life movement for: 1. being unwilling to compromise; 2. being unwilling to support candidates who respect the Constitution; and 3. I guess just being all-around rude, or something like that, and causing folks not to back their cause.
Well, I took the time to demonstrate that the pro-life movement has been willing to compromise, to acheive small gains and wins, at every turn.
And that we have been the most consistent supporters of candidates who respect the Constitution, especially of Republican presidential candidates since 1980, when the issue first came to prominence in a national election.
And that actually, majorities DO support our cause, but that it has been frustrated by a determined minority in league with individuals who sit on the Supreme Court who are so out of touch with anything approaching actual Constitutional jurisprudence that it has become a scandal.
It isn't the attitude or tone of pro-lifers that defeats us. It is the lies of the pro-abortionists. Like when they tell folks that Roe is primarily about making sure that women who are raped or whose lives are in danger from pregnancy can have access to safe and legal abortion. When the truth is that over 95% of abortions are for convenience.
Like when the pro-abortionists claim that thousands died each year from back-alley abortions before Roe, when the number was more like dozens. Per year. Nationwide.
Like when women were told by the pro-abortionists (and some insist to this day - in spite of the evidence that we all now see with ultrasound) that the unborn baby is just a clump of undifferentiated cells, a clot of blood.
It isn't the fault of the pro-life folks that the pro-abortion folks lie like rugs.
The poster is confusing his or her frustration with some posters here with the actions of the pro-life movement in general, and is confused in his or her recounting of history.
As well, I think another problem in this thread is that the perceived threat by pro-lifers to withhold support from a pro-abortion Republican presidential candidate is being misread by some as being a historical failure to support Republican presidential candidates in the recent past. It's an understandable error, but an error nonetheless.
Bottom line - the pro-life movement hasn't had any reason not to support the Republican presidential candidates in the recent past - they've all supported a pro-life Republican platform. Furthermore, at the level below the presidency, we've supported folks who were pretty dodgy on this issue, including Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, and in my own state, Bob Ehrlich, the pro-ABORTION Republican governor of Maryland. Do you think he was elected without the pro-life vote? LOL.
We did these things BECAUSE we are willing to compromise to achieve what we can.
Thus, any political failures in the past for the Republican Party certainly can't be laid at the feet of the pro-life movement. However, let's talk about the sort of folks who voted for President Bush in 1988 and abandoned him in 1992...
I bet they were folks for whom the highest priority was not abortion.
Perhaps if the poster took care to ground his or her comments in actual historical events, he or she would avoid smearing millions of folks in the pro-life movement unfairly and inaccurately.
sitetest
It's more than a "little" condescending, and the fact that such isn't recognized and stopped exemplifies the problem.
As for the content, focusing only at the tip and blowing off as "mere shadows in a cave" the grassroots support and their influence on judicial nominees and the congressmen who confirm them is not spot-on.
Just speaking from experience, and living in an extremely rigidly pro-choice region of the country, I've come to associate the "no-compromise" position with those for abortion: "for any reason, because she wants it", without any regard to the pain felt by the little one, viable and more humane alternative like adoption, or the injustice of it all (capital punishment for one not guilty of a capital crime). Perhaps your experiences, too, are partly driven by the region of the country in which you live.
Another danger is that of sounding "extreme" for naming abortion as murder, which can provoke a "kill the messenger" response.
Not knowing your position on this issue, it's difficult to say any more. I would only implore you, please, don't direct anger you have at the admittedly blunt and gruff rhetoric of some in the pro-life movement toward the little ones, who have done nothing.
You said:
Your rantings against the entire pro-life movement, because of your frustrations with posters here at FreeRepublic suggests someone raving hysterically at his or her own shadows in the cave, by the firelight.
Get a grip.
Study a little bit of the history of the last 32 years.
Take a break.
Drink less caffeine.
Please try to imagine your own interpretation were someone to speak to you that way, keeping in mind that you said it to someone who used much more polite language when addressing you.
I am amazed at the fantasy version of history presented by the poster. If this version were a bit more tethered to reality, perhaps my tone would be different.
I'm sure you'll agree that you are responsible for your own "tone" - especially given that you were spoken to neutrally, if not respectfully.
As well, if the poster's misplaced anger aimed at an entire movement of good and decent people were a bit more muted, perhaps my tone might be different as well.
I know folks in the movement. They don't deserve this dreck.
Your objection appears to be that Trinity_Tx allows posters on FreeRepublic to function as a snapshot of the pro-life movement. Why is that unreasonable? They are certainly part of it, aren't they?
I think you're right. We've already seen one person here say they are further pushed to the left on this issue simply because of the vitriolic language people use in debate.
Thank you, Daughter. It means a lot. : )
I'm thinking it's no use though, so I'm going to go pour a glass of wine and seek some more enjoyable pastime. lol
Condi, for me, is still a question mark, and I probably won't make up my mind for quite some time during which new stars may rise. Abortion is just one matter, albeit a big one.
Have a good night, Trinity. I admire your ability to keep your cool, even when spoken to condescendingly. I wish I was better at that myself.
This is not directed at anyone on this thread, but it's precisely the vitriolic rhetoric used by the pro-choicers in Washington State that has pushed me so far to the right on this issue. I am like Mt. St. Helens, ready to explode into activism here when Roe v. Wade finally is overturned - for all those years of having my views on the sanctity of life scorned, mocked, and ridiculed.
Thanks, you two. : )
Heck, like you say, Lexi, this whole thing is a really premature debate anyway. lol
Anyone who has touble with the TRUTH should not even have a voice.
The earth was created 6000 years ago by GOD the almighty and the proof is the word of God Himself.
Thankyou foir standing for faith!
Dear DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet,
"Please try to imagine your own interpretation were someone to speak to you that way, keeping in mind that you said it to someone who used much more polite language when addressing you."
If someone addresses me in such a manner, the first thing that I usually do is ask the question whether there is justification for it. In the past, on occasion, there has been. It happens to all of us.
In that case, the attitude displayed is not condescension or sarcasm, but merely that of an effort to WAKE UP and deal with reality, as it actually is, rather than how one wishes to see it at this moment in time.
As to the "respectful tone" of the poster, frankly, I found the poster's content deeply insulting and offensive. Not to me, but to the good folks I know throughout the pro-life movement.
"If pro-lifers worked to elect politicians who respected the constitution, rather than blowing them off because they didn't toe the whole moment of conception, no compromise line, that wouldn't be a problem."
This falsehood slanders all the hard work of all the folks in the pro-life movement who have worked their hearts out for even the most mildly pro-life candidate in a given election. The poster seems to miss the basic point that a fundamental strategic goal of the movement is the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and that only political candidates who respect the Constitution will be interested in trying to bring about such an outcome.
It is a slur against the entire movement.
Here is a deeper insult to the good people who work in the pro-life movement:
"It is your 'strategy' of dogmatism and rudely offending everyone who you even think veers even slightly away from your position that hasn't even been able to get rid of partial birth abortion."
This is a taunt. In and of itself, taunting is insulting and rude. But worse, it is a taunt false.
Whatever posters here say, this statement completely detached from reality. The only thing that keeps the partial birth abortion bans ALREADY PASSED INTO LAW AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS is the raw power of the pro-abortion elites in this country, in this case, exercised through the black-robed monsters on the Supreme Court.
The poster's words are gratuitously offensive, rude, and untrue, toward the good and decent people who work every day in the pro-life movement. My own remarks have been mild in comparison.
"Your objection appears to be that Trinity_Tx allows posters on FreeRepublic to function as a snapshot of the pro-life movement."
That is one objection. The falsification of history is also an objection. Each is an objective evil.
"Why is that unreasonable?"
Because the assertions made by the poster are false and smear the good names of good people.
"They are certainly part of it, aren't they?"
I don't know who here might be an active part of the movement, and who isn't. I'm not talking about individuals who have strong views and occasionally express them. I'm talking about my friends who run crisis pregnancy aid centers, who regularly go down to the state capital to address our legislators, who make sure they're at the March each year in Washington.
And even folks like me, who are on the fringe of the movement, who organize events to raise money for pregnancy aid centers, who publicize the workings and events of the pro-life movement, who write to our congressmen and other leaders, who work for political campaigns. I know a lot of my pro-life friends who worked to elect pro-ABORTION Bob Ehlrich here in Maryland. Why? Because we recognized the need for COMPROMISE, and that he was a hair better for us than that witch Kathleen Kennedy Townshend.
The poster's remarks here mock and insult all my friends who worked for Gov. Ehrlich. Will you take after the poster for those ill-considered remarks??
It is a vicious falsehood to lay the blame for failure on these folks. It is a vicious insult. The poster has asserted these falsehoods and insults.
I also know that what folks say in the "safety" of an Internet forum, especially one that is ideologically driven, is not necessarily what folks say in the non-virtual world.
To take the rantings from anyone here at FR, on either side, and say that it is an example of a problem in the non-virtual world is kind of iffy to begin with. It is a form of believing everything one reads on the Internet.
But worse, to make the argument is to be co-opted by the pro-abortion side, itself. To make the argument is to accept the stereotype of the pro-abortion elites (and if you don't think our elites are nearly entirely in favor of legal abortion on demand, then you just aren't dealing with the reality of the situation) that pro-lifers are just mean, nasty, religious fanatics who want to punish innocent people for sex, and that pro-lifers' concern ends when the baby is born.
I've seen the pro-life movement from the inside out, and I know these assertions to be falsehoods. I know that although committing abortions is an extremely lucrative business, and helping women through crisis pregnancy without resort to abortion is not at all lucrative, there are, nonetheless, thousands more pregnancy aid and crisis pregnancy centers than there are abortuaries.
Why? Because millions of pro-life folks care. And do small things that add up to big things. Like hold a spaghetti dinner to raise a couple of hundred bucks for the local Gabriel Project. Or sell Life Savers after church to save some lives. Or donate diapers and baby formula, or an old computer or an old car, to help women through difficult pregnancies.
THAT'S the truth of the pro-life movement! Not the fun-house mirror image one might think one sees here at FR, or the absolute premeditated fraud one sees in the lamestream media.
The bottom line is that most folks who actually are practically involved on a regular basis in the pro-life movement are engaged in working with or helping or supporting women who are in crisis pregnancies.
It is a falsehood and a slur to say that these individuals have prevented pro-life legislation to become effective because of their intransigence or failure to compromise.
The lies and falsehoods spread about the pro-life movement might be easier to bear if it were not for the fact that often the pro-abortion folks merely project onto us what they themselves think, feel and DO.
It would be easier to bear the lie that we are all a bunch of raving lunatic mean and nasty fanatics if it were not for the fact that the raving lunatic mean and nasty fanatics are actually the greedy murdering pro-aborts.
Where I live, there have been a half a dozen or more incidents of serious crime against pro-life organizations in less than a year. My friend's pregnancy aid center was totally trashed, costing tens of thousands of dollars in damage. A nearby center was also trashed, we've had folks who've had their tires slashed, billboards defaced, you name it. It's bitterly ironic when they spraypaint "choice" on a building where the folks are committed to giving women a choice other than abortion.
You don't hear that too much in the lamestream media, do you? Rare is the story that talks about the hundreds of anti-life incidents that take place each year around the country.
But should a single lone nutcase go off and do something bad to the pro-aborts, it is evidence of how mean and nasty and fanatical the entire pro-life movement is.
Yes, I do object to generalizing from the comments here to the broader movement. Because 1) the comments here are distorted by the medium used to tend to make comments move to the extreme and 2) because the actual history of the movement doesn't reflect what is said here, and 3) because my personal knowledge of the movement testifies to the basic decency, honor, and goodness of the folks in the movement.
I have been mild in dealing with this poster. I gave the benefit of the doubt that he or she was just caught up in "FR frenzy" and either was unaware of the true history of the last 32 years, or had just let the rhetoric get away from himself or herself. I didn't take the more sinister view that the poster might be an anti-life troll just trying to rile up good and decent people.
Perhaps I was wrong...
sitetest
-------------------------------
Interesting, then why did congressional JIR report about state sponsored terrorism black-out 28 pages on Saudi Arabia less than 2 years ago? To hide all the good Saudis were doing?
Why did Treasury Dept. General Counsel David Aufhauser say that Saudi Arabia was the "epicenter" of terrorist funding in an appearance before the US Senate?
Why were the Saudi sponsored "charitable" organizations like WAMY and MWL shut down in the US for funding terror?
Why did the Saudi Minister for Islamic Affairs write in 2003 that suicide bombing was accerptable and the "victims" were martyrs?
I am deeply suspiscious of any one (especially one with mideast ties) trying to convince us that there's nothing to worry about in Saudi Arabia. You appear to have an agenda, Kabar.
Congo Lisa?
So much for "no racism in posts . . . "
You asserted, "Since no abortionist has been convicted of murder in the last 30 years ..." You are mistaken, by several counts. Aborticutionists have been convicted of murder; their victims were the failure of the aborticutionists to kill the alive child while still in the womb, so they were murdered' post delivery.
2 things:
1. Before you even posted to me, I made it clear I was not generalizing, but only talking about the ones who were holding back progress. You can deny that they alienate support, just as you deny, or justify, your own uncalled-for manner. We disagree.
2. But, I'll happily take everything back, and say I think there is no problem, and that the mandate for change is as strong as it can be, if you'll just give it a rest.
You're pretty thin-skinned, that's what she was being called by the dems during the confirmation hearings. Race is in the eye of the beholder; she doesn't even look African to me.
The USG's foreign policy relationship with the government of Saudi Arabia over many decades and administrations has been a complex one. Some of the details of this relationship should not be made public for a variety of reasons. The Saudis have acted as our surrogate and financier in Central America, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. They have helped us achieve our foreign policy objectives and protect our national interests.
Saudi Arabia has the world's largest proven petroleum reserves and the world's fifth largest natural gas reserves. It ranks as the largest exporter of petroleum and plays a leading role in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The Saudis have unilaterally increased production at our request to stablize world oil prices. In terms of the world economy, Saudi Arabia is one of the most important countries in the world.
Saudi Arabia is home to two of the three most sacred sites in Islam, which makes it a very important place for the world's over 1.5 billion muslims. This fact circumscribes what any Saudi Government can do in terms of it domestic polices.
You are confusing what individual Saudis do and what are the official actions of the Saudi Government. In his fatwas UBL called for the overthrow of the Saudi Government. AQ has carried out multiple attacks against Saudi Arabia including the targetting of government officials. I stand by my statement that Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terrorism, which also happens to be the official USG position.
How would you change our relationship with Saudi Arabia, bearing in mind that the fall of the current House of Saud could bring in a more conservative and religious government? All those human rights activitists in the US, including Carter, helped bring down the Shah of Iran, which resulted in Khomeini and the mullahs. We are now reaping the bitter fruits of that takeover, i.e., global Islamic terrorism and a nuclear Iran.
Dear Trinity_Tx,
1. But you did generalize, and falsely, reporting a pseudo-history that doesn't actually exist in this reality. Maybe an alternative reality, but not this one. You stated that, as an example, the failure to achieve an enforceable ban on partial birth abortion was because:
"It is your 'strategy' of dogmatism and rudely offending everyone who you even think veers even slightly away from your position that hasn't even been able to get rid of partial birth abortion."
That is axiomatically false. The effort to ban partial birth abortion is, in itself, a massive compromise.
Yet, laws HAVE been passed at state and federal level banning partial birth abortion. It is the pro-abortion elite, exercising their raw power through the anti-democratic fascist means of five dirtbags wearing black, doing the bidding of their death-worshipping Master, who prevent the laws from taking effect.
Your attempt to blame the pro-life movement, or even some part thereof for the abuse of power of the pro-abortion elites is offensive, and an insult to all the good and decent people who have worked their butts off to make even the smallest of changes in the law, to win even the smallest victories, the smallest compromises.
2. Okay. Although that is your assertion, not mine.
sitetest
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.