Poppycock.
| As First Lady of the United States from 1993-2001, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier and increase support for families in the adoption and foster care system |  |
Posted on 06/18/2007 2:19:35 PM PDT by wagglebee
False inneundo?? Give me a break, Giuliani only came out for adoptions when it became clear he couldn't spin his way out of his pro-abortion stand.
Giuliani supports abortion rights, his stand is more liberal than most Democrats. Dude, where've you been? This Forum is littered with the carcasses of those who foolishly supported Rudy.
ROFLOL!!!
Talk is cheap.
In actuality, all three branches, along with the people of this country, have the duty to demand equal protection for the millions of unborn children who are killed year after year. The president could refuse to enforce an unconstitutional order from the bench, could call upon Congress to impeach judges, could advocate and sign anti-abortion legislation, and in the very least could use the bully-pulpit to reach the hearts of the American people. That's in addition to his power to make appointments to the bench.
It should go without saying that electing persons with the greatest respect for life and the Constitution gives the greater likelihood that abortion is outlawed. Electing persons without that commitment reduces the probability to zero.
Rudy’s latest position would cast doubt on the assertion that he currently is for state-funded abortions. He certainly can accused of flip-flopping, so can Romney and Thompson, and no doubt that leaves plenty or room for confusion. But so far, to date, only Hunter and Rudy have pledged action against abortion.
There, fixed it. :)
Period.
“The longer this goes on, the better Ron Paul looks.”
At last call, that fat girl with one eye and a peg leg might look good, too. But you’d still regret it.
That’s garbage. He talks about how “adoptions” went up when he was mayor, but the were adoptions of children already in the system, not babies that were saved from abortion.
Any man that would pay for the murder of his unborn grandchild is PRO-ABORTION.
I have stated in clear English here on this thread that I don't support Rudy. Yet you seem to imply that I do---that's false.
All I am doing is pointing out that Rudy has radically altered his public position. As a result, only Rudy (lately) and Hunter (earlier) have pledged to take action against abortion. You could take that as a sign that pro-life voters are making progress. Instead, you seem to have more of an affinity for attacking the messenger.
But, it seems you're prone to do that as a general modus operandi. I like to argue with truth and accuracy, but I can stoop to your level as well.
Rogue justices said otherwise.
Please do not create a straw man to argue down. I never said a President can do nothing. I asked what a President CAN do that would make his position tenable for you.
Particularly, I'm interested in what you think a President CAN do that Thompson WOULDN'T do if he were elected into office.
That being said, I agree with the rest of your post. But based on your post I don't see how Thompson's position would be untenable for you.
It should go without saying that electing persons with the greatest respect for life and the Constitution gives the greater likelihood that abortion is outlawed.
You need to remember that President Bush is/has been very ardently pro-life, and abortion has not ended in his 8 year stint in office.
Electing persons without that commitment reduces the probability to zero.
That is not necessarily true, but I'll agree that it does reduce the probability.
Name one GOP candidate, beside Hunter and Giuliani who have pledged action against abortion.
What would you do if your were elected President?
He didn't "alter" jack, he was pro-abortion right up to the GOP debates, then he flip-flopped a little and then decided to remain pro-abortion.
As a result, only Rudy (lately) and Hunter (earlier) have pledged to take action against abortion.
Rudy isn't going to do anything about abortion. He reaffirmed his committment to pro-abortion when it became clear he couldn't lie about his past and fool conservatives on it.
You could take that as a sign that pro-life voters are making progress. Instead, you seem to have more of an affinity for attacking the messenger.
Because Rudy is a liar. He has no credibility on this issue.
Yes. Two months ago he reaffirmed his stance on state-funded abortions. If he has changed his position (which is a BIG if) then that is a very transparent flip-flop, and one I wouldn't trust.
so can Romney and Thompson,
Thompson has been entirely consistent with his position on abortion, and if you bring up that survey he took in '94 I'm gonna have to call "shenanigans" since that has been debunked time and again.
But so far, to date, only Hunter and Rudy have pledged action against abortion.
Actually, I don't disagree that I'd like to see other candidates come out with a pro-active way to stop abortions, like encouraging adoption.
Poppycock.
| As First Lady of the United States from 1993-2001, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier and increase support for families in the adoption and foster care system | |
*chuckle*
“The only difference between Hillary and Rudy is that one wears dresses.”
Yeah, but he looks kinda cute in chiffon.
;-)
sitetest
Well, that proves my point to you. Since you regard Rudy as a liar then nothing he says will ever impress you.
I think he's felt the heat from pro-lifers and taken it to heed, as is the wont of all politicians. But, since he's a liar, we'll never know for sure. Hell, for all you know, Rudy's real goal was to grow up and become an abortionist doctor.
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.