Posted on 12/30/2007 2:55:00 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
Fred Thompson is a speech-grabber.
And while only a small number of americans would be effected by the limited ban on the sale of a few weapons that Mitt Romney said he would support, Fred Thompson grabbed the free speech of EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN of the United States.
Both free speech and the right to bear arms are essential to defend our liberties, but of the two, a minor infringement on the 2nd is not nearly as problematic as a wholesale repeal of the 1st foisted upon us by John McCain, with the instrumental and critical help of Fred Thompson.
I see you got the memo, no lie is too big if you use it to take down Mitt Romney. Someone says something you disagree with, just change their quote until it suits your fancy.
I was thinking you guys could save yourself a lot of trouble if you stopped posting articles altogether, and simply wrote your own posts making up things to attack Romney. Cut out the middle man, have some fun — it’s what you are doing anyway. :-)
BIG OLE: “Technically LDS is not a pro-life religion. It allows for abortion with permission of the Bishop and in cases of impact on the expectant mothers health including mental health.”
This is the heighth of irony.
A year or so ago, I think — and it’s hard to believe it’s been going on that long — I was debating some Romney apologist on this issue online, and I made the point that Romney’s record of promoting abortion on demand was at odds with the values of his own pro-life church.
It was the Romney people — Jason Bonham or Dr. Fuller or one of them — who pointed out that I was wrong, that Romney’s “pro-choice” record and supporting Roe v. Wade was NOT at odds with the LDS church, by directing me to the church’s official position on abortion, which to my surprise was more liberal on the issue than I was aware, and in my experience, more so than even most members of the church are aware.
As explained on the church’s website, exceptions include rape, incest, life and health of the mother, and severe fetal deformity:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion
These same Romney apologists liked to point out that the church has never taken a position in opposition to Roe v. Wade, as the last sentence in the official statement suggests. Thus it was O.K., they said, from a church perspective, when Mitt supported Roe and abortion on demand.
Even Mitt himself said on WHO Radio in Iowa, August 2, 2007:
“There are Mormons in the leadership of my church who are pro-choice. ...Every Mormon should be pro-life? That’s not what my church says.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Mitt_unplugged.html
O.K., Mitt, even though you didn’t name who they might be, we’ll take your word for it, just like you tried to justify your pro-abort position by claiming your devoutly religious mother campaigned for abortion on demand even before Roe.
I’ll tell you this, though. I’ve managed or consulted the political campaigns for public office of two or three dozen members of Mitt’s church, and interacted with hundreds more over the last 30 years, and Mormons overall certainly consider themselves and their church to be strongly pro-life. By which I mean what just about everyone on the face of the planet means by the term “pro-life” — i.e., you’re against abortion on demand — which is obviously not what Romney means by the term.
Our freedoms are under constant attack, and perhaps none is more threatened than the rights guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment: The right to bear arms.
Romney understands that this right can be abridged in multiple ways – gun laws can be written poorly, giving desk-based bureaucrats the ability to take away a gun license from a law-abiding individual.
How do I know Romney understands these things? Because I’ve studied his record – and it’s impressive. As governor, he took real, meaningful steps to affirm our right to bear arms.
One of the things that impressed me about Romney was his courage to confront the jumble of state gun laws in Boston – and if he can do that with an 85 percent Democratic legislature in one of the most liberal states in the country, think what he could do in Washington with a more supportive base in Congress.
In 2004, Romney signed a sweeping reform of Massachusetts’ gun laws that made the state’s gun laws far less onerous for sportsmen.
Fact is, if Romney had just talked about his support for the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners, that would be welcome. But Romney was doing more than just talking, he took action.
I admire him for that and the fact that he stepped up to the issue with real solutions and didn’t skip around it like most politicians.
I support Romney.
So far as I can tell reading the plan, the abortion services are covered by the plan’s prohibition against any procedures that are not medically necessary.
I’ve asked posters who claim otherwise to help me out by pointing to the section of the plan that says abortion services are exempt from the “medically necessary” clause, but nobody has.
Maybe you could tell me where it is?
There’s been a lot of misinformation about the plan, and this idea that abortions weren’t covered by the “medically necessary” restriction could well be one of them.
I would have liked to have had a pro-lifer from an abortion-alternative medical clinic be on the board, but frankly we don’t have a national organization of medical clinic representatives like Planned Parenthood has, and that puts us at a disadvantage.
Planned Parenthood runs women’s medical clinics that provide millions of dollars of services covered by medical insurance (abortions are part of that, but 97% of the planned parenthood business is non-abortion).
That means Planned Parenthood unfortunately gets a seat in almost every state medical board. I’d love to see us figure out how to counter that.
The Dems are deathly afraid of Romney.....
We’ve had a President for the last 7 years who vowed to sign an extension of the existing AWB. But for those 7 years, none came over his desk.
It is unlikely that a more restrictive one that meets Romney’s criteria will come over his desk in the next 4 years either. But in the unfortunate chance that it does, we will have the small consolation that we have a strong conservative president and that we managed to muddle through during the 10 years the first ineffective ban was in place.
Romney understands the 2nd amendment, and the only complaint is that he draws the line at which guns to ban slightly further to the left than, say , our other candidates, none of whom are calling to lift the ban on Machine guns, another weapon many people would love to own, and should be able to own.
If your candidate calls for lifting that ban, I’ll give him better credibility on the 2nd amendment. But so long as our leading candidates like Fred Thompson think it’s OK for the state to ban people from carrying guns on public college campuses, I refuse to accept the contention that a ban on a few assault weapons makes MY candidate unacceptable in comparison.
What would have saved the Virginia Tech students — the lack of an AWB, or the right to carry weapons on the campus? My candidate would have banned a couple of weapons nobody would have been using to defend themselves on the campus, because Fred Thompson would support the ban on carrying ANY weapons for defense on that campus.
And don’t get me started on the 1st amendment, where my candidate is clearly better. While you fret that my candidate will take away your right to by a few types of weapons, thus violating the 2nd amendment, your candidate voted to grab my free speech, and in fact took away the free speech of every citizen of the united states.
Romney said he would support a more limited AWB, so yes, he would sign one. I agree that’s wrong, but we are talking about a limited number of weapons.
Since none of our candidates are calling to lift the ban on machine guns, it’s just a matter of degree.
Let me ask you what is more important to you — the ability to purchase a few more assault weapons, or the right to carry your weapon with you in public?
Fred Thompson said he supported allowing states to ban their citizens from carrying guns on public college campuses — a ban that exists in my state and prevented people with valid CCW from having their guns with them on the day of the Virginia Tech shooting.
Since then, while the state talks about more gun control, banning weapons from people who simply sought the care of a therapist at one time or another in their lives, the teachers at Virginia Tech are secretly begging legislators to give them the right to have weapons in their desks, so when the next shooter breaks into their room they have a better option than standing in the way of the bullets.
So, which is worse — my candidate who would prevent you from buying a couple weapons that if you wanted you would have already bought, or Fred Thompson who would support my state banning you from having a gun on a college campus to defend yourself against the Tech shooter?
NUTCRACKER: “Governor Romney is a...decent man with no skeletons in the closet.”
That’s right. Mitt isn’t hiding anything in the closet. He’ll tell you anything and everything about his life.
Including the stuff he makes up.
Which calls to mind Mark Twain:
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.
It’s what you know for sure, that just ain’t so.”
I thought he was a dictator, and could use the vulcan mind meld to force the supermajority democrats to do his bidding.
“Both”
Both!
“The Dems are deathly afraid of Romney.”
Sure they are.
They haven’t quite figured out how to play the flip-flopper card. (sarc)
But they are masters at playing the race card. Do the Repubs really want to be eating this next fall?
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/blogs/bible-blog/2007/dec/13/byu-prof-morm/
“The Dems are deathly afraid of Romney”
I can’t think why. Aside from Huckabee, Mitt would be the easiest Republican to defeat. There are Republicans who won’t vote for him because of his religion, and others because of his perceived flip-flopping. Mitt would have a hard time winning in November. He’d be wise to go for VP or a cabinet job under Fred Thompson.
Bull $hit!
You better read what Fred wrote about the VT campus shooting right after it happened. He blamed the anti-CCW rules on campus for the number of deaths that might have been saved.
I think if he were an extraordinarily “Honest Man” he would have said something to the effect of....Although I use to varmint hunt a bit as a kid...IM not really a hunter...BUT I respect the tradition and those that enjoy the sport and am firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!!! (if in fact he is)...Now wouldn’t that have been simpler and more powerful??? I could care less if he hunted or not...but his views on it is the important point!!! I find the lie more offensive then his flip-flops
Sure....that is why the media goes after Romney 10 times a day. Remind me not to hire you as a political advisor.
Bush isn't running. And I'm done with RINOs. I'll vote third party before I'll vote for a gun grabbing RINO.
The AP guy dislikes Mitt as much as about a dozen freepers,and misinterprets, misrepresents and do the full body slam about nothing? Just like the freepers with high blood pressure about Mitt.
If you look back to 92 which I have,a whole lot of people disliked Clinton that viscerally and he was elected anyway, and they still love him no matter what he has done or laws broken. No one has accused Mitt of breaking laws or misuse of cigars.
I guess I can stand by Mitt with his supposed flips.
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.