Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senator Hillary Clinton offers abortion solution
Denver Post ^ | 2/13/05 | John Aloysius Farrell

Posted on 02/13/2005 7:33:53 AM PST by Libloather

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
But liberals should listen, and conservatives should test her sincerity.

Who would more than likely get an abortion - a liberal or a conservative?

1 posted on 02/13/2005 7:33:55 AM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather
If just 60,000 more people in Ohio had voted Democratic, McAuliffe ruefully notes, he'd be picking up orders from President Kerry and heading for a new job as ambassador to Great Britain. A tweak here, a TV ad there, and the Democrats are back in business.

My God, I just got a chill. And Bush won by 100,000 or better, I thought..

2 posted on 02/13/2005 7:35:59 AM PST by cardinal4 (George W Bush-Bringing a new democracy every term..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Maybe there is no way out of our culture wars. Perhaps Clinton's offer was just posturing.

Her offer to do WHAT??? Give some lip service to godliness while passing out more condoms in the public schools?

3 posted on 02/13/2005 7:39:53 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Senator Hillary Clinton offers abortion solution...

"Freeper Infidel29 offers abortion solution... don't abort" that was easy, now on to this socialist security business...

4 posted on 02/13/2005 7:40:31 AM PST by infidel29 (America is GREAT because she is GOOD, the moment she ceases to be GOOD, she ceases to be GREAT- B.F.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Obvious answer lib socialist.
BUT question who should get an abortion?
ANSWER, NO ONE! (correct answer)


5 posted on 02/13/2005 7:43:50 AM PST by stopem (Support the troops yellow ribbon purse-key-holders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The Democratic Party is an amalgam of special interests, most of which are abhorent to mainstream Americans.

Fortnately, Dean is not the person to quiet these voices while giving the party the appearance of moving to the middle.

Hillary will benefit from the apparent contrast between the "new Hitlery" and the party led by Dean.


6 posted on 02/13/2005 7:44:28 AM PST by Pylot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
This is their amazing solution?

They've really lost it.
7 posted on 02/13/2005 7:45:54 AM PST by LauraleeBraswell (Forgive Russia, Ignore Germany, Punish France - Condoleezza Rice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
My God, I just got a chill. And Bush won by 100,000 or better, I thought.

He did. But if you take one-half-plus-one of that margin and give it to sKerry, sKerry would have won by one vote (120,000 / 2 = 50,000; 50,000 + 1 vote = 50,001). A 60,000-vote switch would have given sKerry a 10,000-vote margin of victory.

8 posted on 02/13/2005 7:46:04 AM PST by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pylot



Dean was an abortion Doctor.


9 posted on 02/13/2005 7:46:27 AM PST by LauraleeBraswell (Forgive Russia, Ignore Germany, Punish France - Condoleezza Rice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
If just 60,000 more people in Ohio had voted Democratic,

Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up
Shut up shut up shut up shut up

10 posted on 02/13/2005 7:46:33 AM PST by Howlin (Free the Eason Jordan Tape!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

That 60,000 number is bogus. Bush, of course, won Ohio by about 120,000 votes. What the reality-challenged Dems are saying is that if 60,000 of that 120,000 had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have won Ohio. Of course, if far fewer numbers in Minnesota or New Hampshire or Oregon or many other states had switched from Kerry to Bush, the race would have been a runaway.


11 posted on 02/13/2005 7:47:40 AM PST by speedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

You said what I was trying to say, only you said it much more eloquently.


12 posted on 02/13/2005 7:48:25 AM PST by speedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
If just 60,000 more people in Ohio had voted Democratic, McAuliffe ruefully notes, he'd be picking up orders from President Kerry

Uuummm, Terry, you would still be 60,000 votes short.

13 posted on 02/13/2005 7:50:03 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Outgoing chairman Terry McAuliffe is leaving Dean a massive grassroots donor list, a bulging party war chest, a new headquarters building and a state-of-the-art get-out-the-vote operation. [emphasis added]

The state-of-the-art get-out-the-vote operation comprises mostly persons paid to work for the Democrats. It is a party of paid passion, and isn't paid passion also known as prostitution?

14 posted on 02/13/2005 7:50:05 AM PST by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Rats! I thought this was going to be about Hillary aborting herself!!




(Ruined MY day.)


15 posted on 02/13/2005 7:50:07 AM PST by DustyMoment (Repeal CFR NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheGeezer
A 60,000-vote switch

A 60,000 vote switch is different than 60,000 more votes, which is what was said.

16 posted on 02/13/2005 7:51:37 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Could someone please point out what Hillary is actually proposing. Hillary is not proposing any policy change, just spinning the rhetoric so it is not clear what Democrats stand for.


17 posted on 02/13/2005 7:54:19 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

Oh, he meant 60,000 live Democrats would have had to have voted. They would have needed either 60,000 more dead Democrats to vote - or perhaps he meant the initial extra 60,000 would have had to have voted TWICE.


18 posted on 02/13/2005 7:55:17 AM PST by Twinkie (Goo Goo Gitchy Poo Woopsie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
and to work with her and other congressional Democrats to actually reduce the number of abortions in America....Clinton declared her support for "teenage celibacy" programs but said they are not enough.

As nice as this sounds, the Pro-Abortionists won't let it happen, not even from a DemonRat. In the 30 years of Roe v. Wade, abortion has become generally accepted as a viable "health care" alternative, and as such has become a money making industry. The Abortionists do not want to be put out of business (heaven forbid they find work as regular medical practitioners), so they will fight anything that will keep girls from ending up in their doorway.

It's all about money.

19 posted on 02/13/2005 7:55:37 AM PST by peteram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Who would more than likely get an abortion - a liberal or a conservative?

A pregnant woman.

20 posted on 02/13/2005 7:57:15 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson