Posted on 11/04/2007 6:37:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Americans don’t live in a dictatorship, and what’s more, we don’t want to. All an individual can do is to be just and well-considered in his own time. Fred has complied a 100% pro-life voting record. Fred has clearly described his own views on abortion, and pre-natal life.Very well said. I agree with you 100%.He also believes in the power of state legislatures to act on behalf of the people of their states to enact laws that he does not approve of.
Did you read post number 53? That’s as prolife as you can get.
I think you underestimate Carter and Obama. As far as raw IQ goes, Carter as a 20th century President was probably surpassed only by Wilson. Obama was on Harvard Law Review and, from every report I have heard from classmates of his, one extremely sharp individual (even though he doesn't always show it during the campaign).I think you way, way overestimate them. Getting high grades from leftists professors doesn't make a person "sharp".
Getting duped by jihadists, the way jimmah was and osamabama most certainly would be, shows congenital stupidity of a deep and incurable kind.
John Hawkins, Right Wing News, Duncan Hunter supporter:
“I don’t find Thompson’s position on this issue to be troubling. To the contrary, it’s actually a little reassuring in a roundabout way (Pay close attention to this next paragraph or you’ll get confused).”
“Let me tell you why: since we can’t get a constitutional ban on abortion passed, we lose nothing if Thompson gets elected and doesn’t support it. That being said, it would have been politically advantageous for him, with social conservatives, to say that he supports the Amendment. The fact that he isn’t supporting it is another strong indication that he means what he says about Federalism. That’s great news for people who are pro-life, because it means he will likely keep his promise to appoint an originalist judge who respects the Federalist principles in the Constitution and any such judge would certainly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
“Granted, if Thompson said he supported the Constitutional Amendment, it would also be another indicator he was going to appoint a judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade, but still — any candidate who really believes in Federalism will move the ball forward for those of us who are conservatives — and not just on pro-life issues.”
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/11/fred_thompson_tim_russert_fede.php
This one issue, deeply felt by some, is not the burning issue of the day to others.Absolutely. These single-issue-fanatics would sooner let Hillary run the country and invite nukes falling on our heads than admit for one second that there are any other issues worthy of consideration other than their single, over-riding concern.
There is nothing wrong with being fanatical about the pro-life issue. Strategy seems to be the sticking point. If we do not have life, we have nothing.
AMEN!!!
It's getting to the point of being ridiculous and offputting to readers here.
And the sad part is that if those of us who are just as pro-life as the determined spammers express our dismay or outrage at the never-ending, repetitive volleys and hi-jackings, then we are not true conservatives but "baby killers" just like Rudy, Romney, Fred, and almost the whole list of GOP hopefuls.
The positions of candidates on a variety of world and domestic issues worthy of discussion here are almost immediately drowned out by the ceaseless, determined one-issuers who pounce right away to change the whole course of a very good original thread into their own personal forum for their one-issue soliloquys.
And it will only get worse in the coming weeks leading up to the primaries. Do the issues of Iraq, Iran, the economy, the price of oil, etal mean anything at all to you single-issue folks?
I'm sure the dedicated freepers who actually post the original articles themselves become crestfallen when they post an article on the candidates' positions on Cuba or terrorism, for instance, only to see their posts turned into abortion threads very quickly. I'm sure most readers are crestfallen also, and stop reading the thread as their eyes begin to glaze over.
I'm addressing this post to those good folks who wrongfully assume that every single primary campaign thread is their own private forum for their own single issue and the hell with everything or anybody else, especially all us baby-killers and impure conservatives out here.
I think a helpful solution would be a regular pro-life thread devoted to that subject exclusively and the existence of which would most certainly please just about everyone.
Leni
I didn’t like that answer either. OTOH, thinking logically not emotionally, the POTUS is not empowered to control college campus security. I work on a college campus, BTW.
This “common sense” advice is of course, promoted by the MSM because they want either Hillary or Rudy. A divided Republican party means Rudy gets the nomination. Fred does not have the resources to take on Hillary in the general election. He does have the name recognition to be a spoiler for Mitt Romney.
Objectively, you really have to love Fred to say that his performance on Meet the Depressed was anything but C-.
Glaringly obvious what was going on. To omit the one issue that galvanizes Americans--especially since Thompson has staked such a clear position on it--can only be conscious effort.
Whether or not Hillary's machine ordered Russert to steer clear of the subject is probably immaterial. He--and the rest of the liberal media--can figure out on their own how devasting it is to their cause of putting a liberal in the WH to allow a front-running conservative candidate any airtime on that issue. Since this is such a strong area for Thompson, he can't politely hang back waiting for the question. He needs to craft artful segues with which he can broach the subject himself from several different directions,
Agreed. I think immigration should be made the defining issue of the 2008 campaign. Fred has presented the best and most detailed plan on the issue. He must include his views on immigration in every such interview, even if it is outside the questioning. Russert and the rest of the biased MSM know that immigration is radioactive for the Dems because it cuts across party lines and pits one group of their constituents against another.
You’ll miss him, and many others, if they don’t show up to vote next November.
Our party isn’t big enough that we can be chasing people away. It’s one thing to work to get conservative CANDIDATES instead of RINOS, and even to work to get the exact kind of candidate you want.
But when it comes to SUPPORTERS, we need all of them, including all the conservative factions, AND the RINOS. If they are willing to vote for our candidates, they are welcome to do so, and we shouldn’t be calling them names and telling them to go away.
Hopefully this time we won’t need a civil war. But we will need to impose the right to life on every state in the union.
Ramos and Compean were charged for shooting an illegal drug smuggler. Those were all federal charges, including assault with a deadly weapon.
Here is an article that mentions a man being brought up on a Federal Murder Charge
Maybe you were being coy. Obviously, none of the 50 states has a "federal law" on their books. The law is a federal law.
Granted, these laws seem to be based on the 14th amendment.
My comment was supposed to be provocative and not to be taken too seriously. But there was a tinge of truth in my comment, though. I do not view my ideological differences as Republican versus Democrat. I, instead, view them as paternalist versus libertarian (small "l") and it sickens me to see political opportunism no matter which side I see it coming from. I disdain single-issue, narrow-mindedness whenever I see that, as well. The whole concept of freedom and 'live and let live' [as long as no one is causing direct harm to one another] is lost on far too many people that identify themselves as Republicans or Conservatives..and we're supposed to be the gaurdians of these principles in this modern day; what happended?
What’s it matter if he wants to gut the Reagan pro-life platform?
If murder aside from abortion were legal in any states, I believe it would be appropriate for Federal action. The Feds have historically done this over many things that are not explicitly guaranteed by the Constituiton when they did not like the way States handled it.
Things like voting regulations such as poll taxes and ballot tests.
Things like public schools administering.
And even things like criminal trials that did not go their way hence Civil Rights violations.
And of course the big daddy that so many love to usurp for any argument here....slavery.
Coming from a Romney supporter, that’s pretty rich.
*************
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm voting for Fred.
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.