Replies

I have no idea whether I ever responded to a post by her before, her posting style is eclectic to say the least so I probably ignored her threads. Plus I don't get into the hillary derangement syndrome threads.

I said her banning happened right after the 3 deleted posts. I don't know what was in the posts, so I can't assert they were the reason. Someone else had raised the question of how she was able to "delete" her posts, as she claimed -- but it is possible she was simply using poor grammar, and she had her posts "deleted".

In the absense of other information though, the posting of comments that you find necessary to ask to be deleted suggests something was wrong with the comments.

And her final post combined several items in opposition to Fred, including links to two previous threads she had posted which were attacks on Fred for other matters than Abortion.

The thread still exists, her posts she didn't have removed still exist, so there's no point in us arguing over our interpretations.

What Mia Said about me and other pro-lifers: What does it mean to be pro-life"

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.
.. 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.

Here is the "reference" to Fred Thompson in the thread: So, you'll be voting for Fred Thompson then? First sensible thing you've posted on this thread This was in response to Mia saying we needed "citizen-legislators" (odd because Rudy is anything BUT a citizen-legislator).

Post 126, In response that post.

Response to her: Look at Thompson's lobbying history -- it is universally in favor of deregulation, period

Her response I guess was: Deleted by Moderator

as was 134, they were both responses of some kind by Mia. Then 135 was deleted, it was a response to Mia's response. Mia said she'd try again. I still bet she said something false in there, that attacked Fred Thompson. I can't prove it.

Mia's replacement response:

... In any case, Thompson is hardly a 'citizen politician.' He is very much a part of the DC power structure.
As for his winning attributes, listen to Lamar Alexander: EARTH TO LAMAR: FRED THOMPSON LOOKING THE PART AIN'T ENOUGH (41-second video FLUB)
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

She makes three attacks on Fred, NONE related to "pro-life". Further, two of them have nothing to do with what the poster said about Fred. And the 2nd two are links to previous threads she posted in the past week attacking Fred.

Mia Vanity about Lamar's Hardball Interview: In this Vanity, Mia says:

Lamar Alexander on Hardball, pushing Fred Thompson for president confirms the obvious: Fred's top asset is his stage presence, followed closely by his presidential and other executive experience... on film. Fred's geography and ideology seal the deal for Lamar, the former being pure South and the latter, pure enough Right.

This is not simply quoting Lamar from hardball, Mia expresses her viewpoint about Fred using Lamar. And look carefully, she ignored his 8 years of legislative experience.

She later tried to claim it was Lamar's view: "This is a report on Fred's promoter's opinion, not mine.", but her words were HER opinion about Lamar: "confirms the obvious". "Obvious" means MIA's opinion about Fred's qualifications. Mia then says "Personally, I don't view being a senator especially relevant", which was obvious because she ignored it in giving her opinion about what was obvious about Fred's experience.

Fred's Greatest Role -- By Mia T This is a vanity by Mia, it's her own opinion:

To add to the real-virtual complexity, what if Thompson is not planning to jump in at all? What if this is just another role? What if Fred is playing Perot for his friend, John McCain, (who, in this analogy is clinton to Rudy's Bush 41)? That is, 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.) ... This theory would explain Fred's unwillingness to declare. Of course, if the plan doesn't work, then Fred may jump off the stage and into the race for real.

She is not quoting someone else's opinion (she doesn't attribute it to someone, and she copyrights it for herself). Her "question" is a rhetorical device meaning "I can't prove any of this so I have to "ask it" rather than "assert it". Note that by the end of her opinion, the question mark is gone: "If THE PLAN doesn't work".

So, to summarize, you said:
Mia T said Thompson had no Executive Experience,
What she SAID was "As for his winning attributes, listen to Lamar Alexander". NO mention of "executive", either in that line or in the referenced thread.

You said: "Mia T said Fred is part of DC power structure because in addition to serving as Sen. for 8 yrs. he was a WASHINGTON LOBBYIST FOR 18 YRS.". I never said anything different.

You said Mia T didn’t claim he was running to take conservatives from Rudy; what she said was "Of course, if the plan doesn't work, then Fred may jump off the stage and into the race for real."

And her question itself was an attack on his character and integrity, suggesting he was playing us for fools.

And those two things had nothing to do with either his pro-life position, OR the comment made by the other poster -- they were spam, meant to attack a conservative, in support of Rudy.

I believe my characterization is both plausible and rational.

I have no idea what precisely got her banned, the 2 deleted comments, her calling pro-lifers supporters of immorality and baby-killers, or her attacks on a conservative in defense of a liberal.