You must have me mixed up with someone else.
Posted on 03/25/2002 1:05:22 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
You're giving Rice a pass on abortion. That means you're okay with it, to that degree. If the practice were repugnant, soul-withering, appallingly unacceptable, you'd never trust the leadership of someone who can affect that practice and who thought otherwise.
Put it on another plane, and try to think rationally about it. Suppose Rice were "okay" with involuntarily castrating men she finds disagreeable. Suppose it were a man, and he were "okay" with rape. Would you criticize people who opposed such candidates as "single-issue like Barbara Boxer"?
And, for the record, I don't assume I know Rice's position on abortion. I've read that she's said she was pro-life, and I've read that she's said she was reluctantly pro-choice. Before I make an individual judgment on her, I'll want to hear it from her, in some detail.
And if the notion of butchering babies for being inconvenient doesn't cause her moral repugnance needle to quiver, she's no one I could support as President-in-waiting.
Dan
I predict the grass roots conservatives will leave him in droves and nominate a REAL conservative candidate.
BUSH IS TOAST IN 2004!
Have you ever wondered why some people are annoyed by your comments?
Does it have to do with the fact that you attribute the butchering of babies with anyone who is not as militant in their beliefs as you?
Anyhow, I'm morally against abortions. I think we should restrict abortions to only certain circumstances. Does my willingness to allow some exceptions (such as rape or incest) make me an enemy in your view?
I believe the "bait and switch", as you say, happened when I refrenced background and someone switched to present-day policies.
But I really think you missed the point of the post. Read it again slower, or to your dog, or something.
Dan
Wrong! You changed the subject to present-day policies.
Let's make it easier for you. What are some of the policies, of any kind, that have been advocated?
You totally danced around that.
That's exactly what you want. Don't complain if he loses.
You must have me mixed up with someone else.
Er, you've called folks like us "myopic," "stupid" and "annoying" on this thread. You might want to reread your own advice.
I don't understand how pro-life people can give pro-aborts a pass, and then turn around and berate other pro-lifers for actually having a "line in the sand" on baby killing.
If Condi is nominated it will be serious third party time, and given threads like this, I won't miss the compromise-till-you-drop-Republican-party one bit.
Not at all. I did not change the subject, someone else did.
Perhaps you can give us an example of a clear policy that has been advocated.
I've made no comment one way or the other concerning her "policies." She's the NSA, for crying out loud. She follows the President's lead and, as the title explicitly says, advises the President.
Now, you're still dancing. Not only are you invalidating whatever point(s) is it you are attempting to make, but you are also, by your refusal to answer a straight question, making me wonder about your true motives.
Clear it up!
What makes Condi Rice a Marxist?
Plain question. Answer it!
YOU made the claim, no one else. Therefore, back it up! You've totally failed to do so.
Your tactics and arguing style may work on Democrats, but it definitely doesn't work on me.
Gladly. It was suggested that the discussion begin with policies advocated, so let's start there and work back.
I am unaware of any clear policies advocated and am looking to those who are to begin the discussion. If you do not have the patience or the information required for participating in the process, just say so.
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.