Posted on 04/05/2007 9:14:04 AM PDT by Barney Gumble
You sure are an ASS umptive person, aren't you? And as an ASS umptive person, your ASS umption shows your ass.
Most people wouldn't be so foolish as to say something like that, but you didn't mind.
I think that we each read that with biases that make it say exactly what we want it to say instead of what it actually says.
There’s no doubt that he supports the right to choose, but I’m not convinced that he would encourage each choice to be an abortion.
Bush isn't running in 2008. He hasn't signed any anti-gun legislation since he started serving. Rudy would sign any anti-gun legislation that crosses his desk. Ditto for Hillary, Obama and McCain. It's a frustratingly poor field of candidates running for 2008.
Well said, Hit!
What's this--you weigh the life of a child based on whether her mother was irresponsible or not? What the hell kind of prolife attitude is that?
If the Constitution does not limit citizens then it does not prohibit abortion. If it does not limit something, then it allows it.
Your insistence that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution is incorrect assuming, as the courts have, that killing a fetus is not murder. If it was murder there could be no right to abort.
But based on the propaganda techniques you’ve attempted with me by calling me rudy bot, rudy booster, etc, and labelling others as “pro abortion” , I have to realize that your handling of other people’s words will never be objective or trustworthy.
I see people like you calling someone proabortion and I hear that person straight out say the opposite.
Someone is wrong.
As we both agree, you have done a bit of research on Rudy and I have not.
So if I am wrong it is ignorance and with you it is intentional.
It's called following the Supreme Court decision in Roe. Like it or not, this "pretzel-ed logic" is what passes for constitutional law in the 21st century.
That is possible but by no means obvious. There will be some transforming events before November 2008, which may cut either way.
I honestly think both extremes on both sides of the issue don’t want it to come to a vote. Each side has something to lose. A shame, they can’t focus on what they would win.
Liberal dogma: Mercy for the guilty, death to the innocent. What's not to understand?
“Your insistence that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution is incorrect assuming, as the courts have, that killing a fetus is not murder. If it was murder there could be no right to abort.”
Show me where in the constitution that murder in itself is a federal matter.
You can’t. It’s not there. The laws on murder and the punishment for it are things the founders left up to the states to decide.
You keep trying to shift things around. You’re flailing.
“But based on the propaganda techniques you’ve attempted with me by calling me rudy bot, rudy booster, etc, and labelling others as “pro abortion” , I have to realize that your handling of other people’s words will never be objective or trustworthy.”
And what is should I call your avoidance of answering tough questions? Do you want to label that one for me? You spent much more time saying why you wouldn’t answer a simple, direct question than it would have taken to just answer it.
If someone is using standard liberal techniques in a debate on this board, I and others will point it out. Those dishonest debating tactics are standard fare for the left. They shouldn’t be allowed to be done by the right. It seems like the only time they get used are when it’s time to defend a liberal republican. You have to wonder what that is.
“So if I am wrong it is ignorance and with you it is intentional.”
Show me where I’m wrong. You keep saying it, but you have no proof. The only thing you’ve managed to muster on that is “well, rudy says he’s against abortion, so that means you’re wrong when you say he’s pro abortion!”
That proves nothing. Try some facts for a change.
So what you are saying, Rudy ran for the 2000 senate election after 9/11 2001.
I knew he was tricky but not that tricky. If you are going to make up history as you go along at least get the time line right. Sheesh. Doofus. You bet.
Nope. They might entertain the idea — but they won’t. At the end of the day, the vast majority of those voters — 97 plus percent — will come home.
Th epool of single issue anti-abortion voters has grown smaller and smaller by the year. And, in a time of war as we have now, the stakes are just too high to let the White House fall into the hands of people who will not protect the country or its interests overseas.
This is not an opinion; it is a fact, borne out by vast amounts of private survey data as well as the many years I have spent engaged in electoral politics and political analysis.
You won’t like to hear that and will probably flame me back — as I expect others will too — but I am certain of my facts here.
Hyde severely limited when the government will pay. Rudy sometimes says he doesn't want to do away Hyde, but he also says that those who cannot pay should have their abortions paid for by the government.... which is essentially doing away with Hyde. So Rudy talks out of both sides of his mouth.
So I guess that means Bush favors taxpayer funded abortions, too?
No. If someone says they only support abortion in case of rape or the life of the mother, and will try to enact legislation to make that law, I wouldn't say he is for abortion.
Rudy has not indicated that he would sign any piece of anti-gun legislation that crosses his desk. This is pure hyperbole. Site your source on that. He has already indicated that what is good for NYC isn’t necessarily the answer everywhere else. Site your sources instead of resorting to distortion.
“No. If someone says they only support abortion in case of rape or the life of the mother, and will try to enact legislation to make that law, I wouldn’t say he is for abortion.”
Wrong. Bush and the Republicans could have submitted and passed legislation that would have overturned the relaxation of the Hyde amendment, but they didn’t. Instead, they chose to keep the status quo, which essentially funds certain abortions with taxpayer funds. The bottom line: certain abortions in this country are paid for with taxpayer funds.
In addition, Rudy has indicated that he would not overturn Hyde, so that’s good enough for me.
While you're busy shilling for Rudy, please choose the correct words. You want me to cite my sources, not site them. I simply don't have the bandwidth for the latter option.
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.