No, a "shill" is someone who supports a candidate either dishonestly or out of ignorance and largely for political reasons having nothing to do with ideological conformity, and who attacks other candidates on the basis of same (i.e., regardless of what a candidate believes or does). Mitt's actual record (which you've been silent about, other than to refer to it nebulously as a "reason" why other shills also support Romney), is not very good on abortion issues (which, btw, are not completely contiguous with the more ill-defined "life issues" spoken of by people with poor records on abortion).
Am I a "shill" just because I support someone that you don't? That's neither constructive nor mature to employ such namecalling to belittle fellow FReepers simply because you disagree with them on a single candidate in a single election.
No, you are a shill because you falsely portray (whether intentionally or because you have on blinders, I will not render an opinion) Mitt's position(s) on abortion. Likewise, you falsely attack FDT on the issue, using verifably false claims. Case in point would be your claim that FDT voted for some anti-life amendment to a bill back in 1995 (which you tried to use to "prove" that FDT doesn't have a "100% pro-life record). I disproved your assertion quite handily, something to which you never bothered to respond.
So, on that basis alone, you can be called a "shill" for whatever candidate that YOU support. Thank you. I won't call you that, for the reasons that I posted previously, but at least you'll have met your own definition given your ignorance of Mitt Romney's actual record.
Mitt's actual record (which you've been silent about, other than to refer to it nebulously as a "reason" why other shills also support Romney), is not very good on abortion issues (which, btw, are not completely contiguous with the more ill-defined "life issues" spoken of by people with poor records on abortion).
I have not been silent about Romney's record. I guess, by the definition you're using for being "silent" about it, you've also been silent as you've failed to back up your assertions that Romney's record is pro-abortion. You simply give nebulous statements saying that he's not trustworthy on the abortion issue while saying that his actual record is the most important determining factor.
No, you are a shill because you falsely portray (whether intentionally or because you have on blinders, I will not render an opinion) Mitt's position(s) on abortion. Likewise, you falsely attack FDT on the issue, using verifably false claims.
I've falsely portrayed nothing. Are you implying that Dr. Jack Willke is also falsely portraying Romney's record? Is Dr. Willke a "shill" now because he disagrees with your assessment of Romney's record? This man has dedicated his life to the pro-life cause and is now staking his invaluable reputation on Romney yet you're going to disregard it and call Dr. Willke a "shill!!?"
Case in point would be your claim that FDT voted for some anti-life amendment to a bill back in 1995 (which you tried to use to "prove" that FDT doesn't have a "100% pro-life record). I disproved your assertion quite handily, something to which you never bothered to respond.
For one, your link here in this thread does not point to what you think it points to. Second, some of the links in the post where you think that you disproved something are expired and don't point to anything. But, most importantly, you were wrong in that post (which I did find through a little searching) because Roll Call #369, to which I was referring, WAS another vote on keeping FEHB funds from paying for abortions. It was a Committee vote to strip lines 10-17 from page 76 of the legislation, which would have removed that language allowing payment for abortion services. If you would actually read the Congressional Record on the matter you would see that. Your claims that you disproved anything are what is verifiably false.
And I was NEVER asserting that Fred Thompson was anything other than a pro-life candidate. What I've been asserting and will continue to assert is that he doesn't have a 100%, perfect pro-life in the Senate. People here want to demand that he does, but they're wrong. I back up my assertions with the solid facts that the premiere pro-life organization in America - the National Right to Life Committee - did NOT give him a 100% rating AND I did find one amendment on which he did not vote the pro-life position. Instead he voted with all but 5 of the Democrats and a bunch of RINOs like Jeffords, Spector, etc. There may be others, but I'm sure that it is an extremely rare occurrence. Continuing to demand that Thompson has a perfect, 100% pro-life record - despite seeing the facts that he doesn't - meets your own definition of being a "shill".
Does Mitt Romney have a 100% pro-life record? No. Does Fred Thompson? No. Did Mitt Romney answer some pro-choice groups' questionnaires in a manner which did not assert a pro-life position? Yes. Did Fred Thompson do the same? Yes. Neither candidate is perfect on the issue. That's all I've been trying to claim, your false claims, aspersions and namecalling notwithstanding.