Posted on 11/16/2007 8:06:00 PM PST by Josh Painter
Let me walk you through this.... If Frederalism has its way, and Hawaii, California, Mass, Minnesota, etc redefine marriage, after a few years of this, do you really think that nationally, 70% of the population will support one man one woman, as they do now?
Of course not, we will have ceded to the enemies of the family important territory, territory which includes the media centers of the nation, and therefore, will continue to drive public opinion, until, if you believe in one man, one woman, you are committing a hate crime.
You do not elect them because they will shade the truth for who pays them or shade the truth for themselves!
Grow up. You hire lawyers to make sure you understand and if possible, benefit from your rights under the law. You hire lobbyists to make sure that decision makers understand your clients position. Do you think the rights and desires of citizens should not be represented?
If you can't get your state to restrict abortion, how in the heck do you expect to pass a constitutional amendment? Understand that today, many states have tried to restrict or outlaw abortion, but the SCOTUS rules such laws are unconstitional based on Roe vs Wade. States are not permitted to pass such laws.
Once Roe vs Wade is overturned by a SCOTUS that does not add to the Constition, the ability of states (or the Federal Government, for that matter) to pass a law outlawing abortion becomes a simple matter. Much simpler than amending the Constitition.
BOY OH BOY, when fredheads themselves have such a low opinion of the persuasive powers of Mr. Thompson, they should not criticize other, objective observers who have the same opinion.
While the great communicator, Reagan, did not succeed in rolling back Roe v. Wade, he never, ever dropped it off his most cherished national desire, and never, ever wished for it to become state by state trench warfare.
I congratulate and approve of Fred’s votes, and I congratulate Fred for the NRTL endorsement. I wish that Fred had used his time in the Senate to accomplish more. Unfortunately, Fred does not have the resources, agenda or persuasive ability to win the office nor accomplish in the Presidency our common goals. Mitt does.
It is one thing to advance a pro-life agenda in Kentucky, it is quite another to advance a pro-life agenda in Massachusetts.
I am not whining, I am boasting, having won every argument with the Fredheads ...
*rolls eyes*
YIPES!!! Wow, m9, and I thought the others were exaggerating about you! My stars!
I would love for you to prove me wrong, it is such a heavy burden to be the fastest MittWitt gunslinger in these here territories. Are you feeling lucky today? Go ahead, make my day.
Just for fun, try defending Fred’s massive retreat from a National Pro-life agenda into a balkanized, state by state, full employment for lawyers, legislative free-for-all. Frederalism, the last refuge for a lack of National leadership.
Excuse me?
BTW I can't help but notice you have avoided my question, and I do have an addition to the meat of the question.
Not only do you seem to have deep philosophical difference with positions Fred has held for sometime on abortion, but you also have a deep difference on his handling of the impeachment and his split decision, something that occurred almost a decade ago.
So again I ask the question, since you "claim" to have been a "Fredhead" head in the past few month, did you just miss these little details during your due diligence, something that would be very difficult to believe from a high "pay grade" political operative such as yourself or are you just full of crap.
I await your answer, oh "great one"
Fred is from Tennessee, not Kentucky...
I am sure that is just a minor over sight, a great mind such as your has to rest at times...
Oh, you are indeed a fast slinger....
I just don’t think it’s a gun I smell...
Read the post. I didn’t say that Fred was from Kentucky.
Again, your scatological reference belies the shallowness of your critique.
“In a break with some social conservatives, Thompson does not support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. But he supports an amendment that would allow states to recognize such marriages only if they are approved by voters or legislatures rather than judges. Thompson’s amendment would also specify that no state would have to recognize a same-sex marriage approved in another state.”
He could sweeten this further by making it a federal crime for states that do recognize and perform homosexual unions to issue a license to anyone other than residents of their state.
The same could be true about abortion. Allow each state to decide the issue, but if a state allows abortion - then only allow them to perform them on residents of that state. Don’t turn certain states into abortion meccas.
I did read the post. So Kentucky was a randomly picked state then...
Odd choice but whatever you say...
Or vice versa depending on need...
Interesting.
As far as pay grade, well, we all have our fantasies and our realities. Given your attitude and style, as well as how you treat others, I think the pay grade you are is not nearly as high as you portend.
As for mine...
Well, don’t bet too much...
I don't care what they say; I'm a FredHead, loud and proud. I even got a sticker for my car!
“SJB says of his home state of MA: “and nobody ever came out of there in my 53 years who was worth a damn!””
I meant politicians.
If even Ronald Reagan couldn't get a Human Life Amendment passed before the abortion mentality really took hold in this country, what makes you think any President could do it 35 years on, when it has solidified in Congress?
That is the big difference between then and now. We DO have a unique opportunity to get a Republican in the White House and truly affect change with the make-up of the Supreme Court If we can change enough hearts and minds down the road, maybe we WILL get the HLA at some point, but to do that each voter has to be personally involved in the issue, and that will only happen if they're made to face it directly, in their own states, looking at ALL the information, knowing that their vote will affect people they know. Even a vote on a far away HLA won't do that.
On that, we disagree. And Fred is from Tennessee. Mitt could have advanced a pro-life agenda; he had every opportunity to do that, but he knew what it would take to get elected in MA, and being strongly pro-life wasn't going to cut it.
Good point.
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.