WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?

hillary clinton, Hannity & Colmes, YouTube ^ | 4.19.07 | Mia T

[Mia T]

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE 'PRO-LIFE'?

by Mia T, 4.18.07

 

HILLARY TAKES VILLAGE: teen abortion / no parent notification (YouTube)

From the Senate: Statement on Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart Decision Washington, DC -- 4/18/2007 "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito." HILLARY CLINTON ON SCOTUS DECISION

HANNITY: Partial birth? GIULIANI: I think that's going to be upheld. I think it should be. as long as there's provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done. HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion. GIULIANI: If it doesn't have provision for the mother I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother I would support.... GIULIANI: I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to if not exactly the same as the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire. Justice Alito, someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire. If I had been president over the last four years, I can't think of any-- that I'd do anything different with that. I guess the key is and I appointed over 100 judges when I was the mayor so it's something I take very, very seriously. I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very seriously. HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, Roberts, Alito. GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a great judge. You are never going to get somebody exactly the same. I don't think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice. I think a strict construction would be probably the way I describe it. Giuliani on Hannity: VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

 

 

COMMENT:

Premise: The only thing electorally each of us controls is our own vote.
Corollary: Each of us is responsible for the consequences of our own vote.

If we take the primary and the general election separately, that helps to define the problem.

IMO, we are faced, in the primary with selecting someone who will successfully prosecute the war, someone who will successfully protect and defend the Constitution. I suspect no one will disagree with this.

But we must also select someone who can win, for reasons that are obvious to me, but not, apparently, to some in this forum.

Anyone who demonstrates to me he can satisfy all of the above gets my attention, and the one who satisfies it best will get my support.

Notice that I do not mention ideological purity. I don't even mention ideology. Lincoln understood that sometimes you must go outside the system to save the system, that Lady Liberty cannot lift herself up by her own bootstraps.

So in step one, the primary, if you (or I) vote for and help nominate a sure loser in the name of ideological purity or for whatever reason, then yes, you are (or I am) helping to elect hillary clinton or whichever D is nominated.

In the general, if it's hillary vs. Rudy, say, and you don't vote, or vote 3rd party, then you are helping to elect hillary clinton. To think that you have any other options in this de facto 2-party system of ours is self-delusion.

And if you help to elect hillary clinton, you must bear the responsibility for all the deaths of all the children, unborn, living, and not yet even imagined that will flow from that election.

Those are the facts. You may not like them. They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

Dilemmas are tough. Life is full of them. Cognitive dissonance is not comfortable and many here, (and most if not all of us some time or other), find comfort in rationalizing dilemmas away.

But the problem is still there; you are no closer to the real solution. To the contrary. You are fast approaching real disaster. I sincerely hope you see it before it is too late.


POSTSCRIPT

MORALITY: Nothing less than morality undergirds my argument. What I am disputing are not your moral underpinnings--I admire them-- but rather your failure to acknowledge that your solution is no less (and I would argue, far more) immoral than the alternative.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: No insult intended. Dilemmas cause cognitive dissonance. No option is wholly satisfactory. I understand why you don't want to vote for someone who is pro-choice. But there is a dilemma: Your solution, to vote 3rd party or sit home, ultimately helps to elect someone who is by your very own criteria far worse than Rudy.

They may disturb your idea of 'pro-life' as viewed through the narrow lens of abortion.

This statement is not meant as an insult. Being 'pro-life' means so much more than simply being against abortion. When we fail to acknowledge that fact, we do dangerous, irrational, ultimately self-destructive things like helping to elect hillary clinton.

"The power of the harasser, the abuser, the rapist depends above all on the silence of women." (Ursula K. LeGuin)



VOTE SMART: A WARNING TO ALL WOMEN ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON

by Mia T, 3.11.07
A RESPONSE TO 'VOTE DIFFERENT'
(A Mashup of Obama-Apple 1984 Ad Mashup)

YouTube Views for VOTE SMART: 320,931
PLEASE FReep

YouTube (First Month) Honors for VOTE SMART:
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Viewed - News & Politics - English
#33 - Top Rated - News & Politics - All
#30 - Top Rated - News & Politics - English
#7 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - All
#6 - Most Discussed - News & Politics - English
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - All
#7 - Top Favorites - News & Politics - English

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2007

 

[Old_Mil]

The reason Duncan Hunter hasn't garnered any media activity is because he lacks charisma and has no governing experience outside of his service in the Congress.

The man has plenty of charisma - his speeches are filled with Reaganisms - though I grant you he doesn't have as much as the great communicator. He certainly has as much as McCain, Romney, or Hillary.

As far as experience, he's got far more relevant experience than a mayor.

[trisham]

So if you don't want to get bashed on a conservative website, try supporting a conservative.

*************

Seems like a simple concept, doesn't it? Yet apparently it is too complicated for some.

[WakeUpAndVote]

But, wait! Who was she bashing and who was she really supporting?

JimRob’s word is final but, I am still needing to know. Not that I am PO’ed at Jim, it’s that a long standing voice here has been turned off.

What, are we promoting a person for POTUS? I have not decided yet!

[MACVSOG68]

Sorry, but the rules on FR are based on conservatism. If a candidate ain't very conservative, they and their boosters are gonna have tough sledding here.

The tactics I've seen by those who shout the loudest about being conservative clearly contradict that claim.

Plus, just about all the Rudy boosters have no problem ripping into McCain, so it ain't like they don't have their own targets.

But do they try and get them banned? Anyway, both McCain and Romney have been ripped by many on the social right here, and from what I've seen, much more so than mainstream conservatives. It's clear to me that the purpose of the attacks on the top 3 have been designed to weaken support for them in order to bolster one of the one percenters who would be more acceptable to the social right, but of course completely unelectable.

First it was Brownback, then Hunter. When it was obvious neither would ever make it past 1 or 2 percent in any Republican poll, they all went after Newt. Newt of course has more baggage than a 787, and when the admission of an affair came out, they then jumped on Fred's bandwagon. So far, little is known about him or whether he is even interested, but I notice now how off-limits he has become to any negative comments.

The social right needs to understand that conservatism embraces so much more than a handful of social issues, and those issues are not going to drive the election campaign. They must then look to what the real issues are facing this Nation and what Americans will be voting on.

[MACVSOG68]

Except there are two problems. First, Rudy has re-defined strict constructionism to allow a judge to uphold Roe. And Rudy has also said a president appoints judges that match his views.

Surely you understand that lower courts must comply with precedent, and that the USSC must at least consider the rationale for the precedent. As for Roe, it stands alone, and one more appointment will bring it down. Who should make that appointment? Should it be Hillary, or a Republican president?

First of all, Reagan basically defined modern conservatism, and his social conservatism was robust.

His social values were not what made him a good president, nor is he generally quoted as a designer by those who discuss conservatism. Nor am I in any way demeaning anyone's social values, as by definition we all have them in one way or another. But Reagan's lasting legacy has nothing to do with the social aspects of conservatism, but for his tax and defense policies, and his efforts to confront and help bring down the Soviet Union.

Not having at least some social conservative values makes a professed conservative a two-legged stool (with the other two legs being fiscal and national security). The only way conservatism works is when all three are embraced.

You oversimplify true conservatism, by attempting to put it into 3 narrow cubbyholes. True, most conservatives today have a distaste for abortion and ultimately want it sent back to the states. But a conservative's basic attitude is that of how he views the individual and the government.

A liberal wants the government to control the lives of individuals and wants it to be a strong, powerful central government. A conservative believes that individuals have responsibility for their own lives and their own fortunes, and favors government operating at the lowest level (state and local) thereby reducing the need for the federal government in many areas it operates in today.

Conservatives have a great appreciation for the institutions of government that the Founders created, and believe that the first duty of government is to protect the rights of all of its citizens and bring about a secure Nation.

Conservatism does not mean belief in any religion, but an understanding that religion must be free of government interference. Conservatives generally believe in balancing a budget and do not like deficit spending. They want a strong military, but do not necessarily support the need to be the world's policeman.

There is much more that encompasses classical conservatism, but I deny vehemently that many of the issues of importance to the social right are necessarily tied to conservatism.

Once again, the rules here have always boiled down to a basic concept - conservative good, liberal bad. If you find that suffocating, so be it. But conservatism happens to be the core guiding mission for this website, and it's tough to pursue a conservative agenda if you're dragging a bunch of liberalism around with you.

Yet there are many who are nothing short of radicals and extremists here who represent nothing conservatives embrace who operate with impunity simply because their issues fall within the scope of your defined "conservatism". But let me say that conservatives do not embrace extremism, nor the tactics they use.

True conservatives are unafraid of being challenged because they can fully support their positions.

I'm not going to debate Rudy with you as you seem to want to turn this discussion into a Rudy rant. My position on this is simple. Support whomsoever you want during these primaries, and when the time comes to vote Hillary or the Republican candidate, no conservative will pass that up.

[MACVSOG68]

Got a link to that?

Rudybot s on FR are:

It's about half way through the thread.

[MACVSOG68]

I will grant you that some candidates (primarily Rudy and McCain) get more criticism here, but that is because their principles are inconcistent with conservatism. However, I have not seen where any candidate has been "protected" from criticism.

Conservatism embraces much more than the social values some here have, and no none of the three front runners would put those issues up as campaign issues. The tactics many here have used for years in defense of what they call "social conservatism" are also not consistent with conservatism.

[MACVSOG68]

And by tough sledding, it means that there will be a lot more posters who will be arguing against them than normal, and the arguments might get more heated because it will feel like an infiltration. When I post at a liberal site, I expect 20 people to jump down my throat, and that's what pro-rudy people should expect here.

I believe you have missed about 99% of my argument.

[airborne]

The tactics I've seen by those who shout the loudest about being conservative clearly contradict that claim.

Both sides have gone a bit overboard at times.

But it's about Rudy,isn't it?

And Rudy can shout all he wants about conservative values, but I'm not buying it. And neither are many other Freepers,including the founder of FreeRepublic.

But do they try and get them banned?

And more importantly, why have the Mods seen fit to actually suspend or ban many Rudy supporters? They clearly have legitimate reasons.

And many anti-Rudy folks have been accused of being Mods! How paranoid is that?

[MACVSOG68]

I certainly understand that nobody is going to leap to the defense of Hillary if someone like Mia treats Hillary like she would be worse than chosing the anti-christ for President, even though I don’t agree with that sentiment. But to think you can say whatever you like, regardless of the truth, about our conservative candidates for President, and not suffer consequences, is naive.

I've not seen anything that Mia has said about Hillary that I find out of line. I won't discuss the anti-Christ point because it's not relevant. I don't want to see any lies told about any of the Republican candidates, because like Mia, I believe any of them would be infinitely better for this Nation than would Hillary.

As one poster here said, Mia was banned partly for suggesting that Fred might be running to drain off votes from Rudy and setting up his friend McCain to take the nomination. True or not, I saw the same thing on two other sites, and cannot understand why it would not be worthy of discussion and debate. Fred is not even in the race. But when obvious misstatements or outright lies are told of any of the candidates here, the poster should be called on it, regardless of the social values of the candidate. Conservatives do not have to lie to make a point.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, and even if some posters don’t get punished for wrong, it doesn’t mean it is wrong to punish other posters for doing wrong.

If it is done by those who profess that their religious and social values rule their lives, yes, it is completely wrong, and inconsistent with the values of conservatism.

[Elyse]

But, wait! Who was she bashing and who was she really supporting?

Are your reading comprehension skills really that bad?

[MACVSOG68]

Singapore is a safe nation(-state). First and foremost, I want a FREE nation.

The Constitution guarantees certain rights that for the most part guarantees a certain amount of freedom. Those freedoms are restricted by almost every law in existence however, as the first duty of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and create a secure Nation.

This means one that is founded on the principles of Constitutionally limited government, which for me rules out Giuliani.

Fine. Vote for whomsoever you want. If Hillary can provide that freedom you seek, go for it.

The purpose of the primaries is for you to support the Republican candidate you feel best meets your standards. I'm not defending nor denigrating any of the Republican candidates. I am only concerned about the general election and keeping Hillary out of office.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Am very sorry to learn MiaT has been banned.

She has been a most creative force against the Clinton led holocaust that started in 1992 and is about to enter phase II if we don't all unite to stop it.

I think that's her point.

Yes, the abortion holocaust started long before the Clintons.

Thank GOD and President Bush and all who united to get him elected, we finally have a true victory in the fight to stop the abortion holocaust this week in the Supreme Court upholding the ban on the partial birth infanticides.

As conservatives, we ARE pro-life - both for the born and the unborn. It is the socialists/the Marxists who see human life as disposable, as not as valuable as snail darters, as nothing to the power of the STATE. Should they take full power, we will see suffering and death on an untold scale in this country.

I just think we are shooting our own - all of whom will be needed in the fight against the darkness that will definitely fall should the Dems (especially Hitlery Clinton) come to full power.

[MACVSOG68]

Both sides have gone a bit overboard at times.

At times, yes. For the most part though, one side knows it can do so with almost complete impunity while the other must tread very lightly, and that no matter how valuable you are and have been to the forum, one little slip of the pc rules and you are gone. A little moral relativism it would seem.

But it's about Rudy,isn't it?
And Rudy can shout all he wants about conservative values, but I'm not buying it. And neither are many other Freepers,including the founder of FreeRepublic.

It would seem so to read the comments of the social right here, but with me it has not been about him at all. The issue is simply why the most important election of our times is going to be held hostage for a candidate who meets the approval of the social right, a relatively small part of the Republican Party.

[Petronski]

dirtboy said:

She also managed to try to define the basic concept of pro-life downwards, and also tried to imply that Fred was in the race just to draw votes away from Rudy.

FreeReign said:

I'm pro life and pro Fred.

Mia did nothing of the sort.

Read this:

What if Thompson's sole purpose is to give McCain the nomination by skimming off just enough conservatives from Rudy? (NB: gross is net, i.e., McCain has no conservative support to lose.) FRED'S GREATEST ROLE?: an alternative theory of Senator Thompson's not-yet candidacy

[Peach]

Mia - Your banishment from Free Republic is truly one of the more asinine bans I’ve ever seen. That you were called an abortionist troll is so ridiculous that I’m embarrassed for the person who actually had the criminal stupidity to call you that.

You will be deeply missed, Mia. Since the ‘thon has gone relatively well, although I’ve been told it’s going slower than previous fund raisers, I do believe it’s likely that anyone supporting Rudy too vocally will be banned. It’s quite the little echo chamber that is being created here, primarily by a group of people who thought that Alan Keyes should be our nominee in 2000.

As has been noted by many freepers in the last year, many good posters have left FR. Thank you for the years of entertainment and your creative criticisms of the Clinton machine.

[RadioAstronomer]

To Dirtboy,

MiaT is gone and your still here.

In a word:

Reichsmordwoche

cc: MACVSOG68; syncro; jla; miss didi; peach; dog gone

[MACVSOG68]

Reichsmordwoche

Yes, the purges still live through those who fear the truth.

[MACVSOG68]

Well said!

[CharlesWayneCT]

I may have missed 99% of your postings, although I highly doubt it.

However, I was expounding on dirtboy's response you your last post, and specifically the part of your post where you said: But as you are aware, the rules are different for different candidates. And that, my friend, is simply disingenuous.

I believe 100% of your argument there was that it was disingenuous that Rudy was treated under different rules than other candidates. If that is only 1% of your argument, you should probably post the other 99% of why it is wrong for the most liberal candidate to get a lot more grief and for posters against him to be given a lot more latitude than they are when criticizing a more conservative, more acceptable candidate.

I'm sure you must have one great argument if what you said was only 1%. But so long as it's trapped inside your head, it isn't doing you any good. Let if free, if it loves you, it will come back to you -- no, never mind that....