Fred Thompson's View On Abortion [Archive]

Seabee

12-27-2007, 02:09 PM

Since suzie makes an excellent point about using run of the mill blogs I will change my proof to Thompson being pro-life.

A: What the situation is now is as follows. Because of Roe vs. Wade, all states are restricted from passing rules that they otherwise would maybe like to pass with regard to this area. If you abolish Roe vs. Wade, you're going to allow every state to pass reasonable rules that they might see fit to pass. There hasn't been a serious effort to put forth a constitutional amendment because people knew that it wouldn't pass. What I've been talking about is directing our energy toward something that was halfway practical, something that might could get done. So now where we have no states with the option of doing anything about it, then we would have however many states wanted to. You could move from zero yard line, to the 60- or 70-yard line instead of standing pat, which is where we will remain if we don't abolish Roe vs. Wade.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 "Choosing the President" interviews Nov 25, 2007

Taken from: On the Issues (http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Fred_Thompson_Abortion.htm)

Voting record towards end of Senate run:

Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

Taken from: On the Issues (http://www.issues2000.org/Fred_Thompson.htm)

So, even if he is pro-choice, he is leaving it up to the states to decide. Something which your candidate has been unable to display. Fred cleverly covers two hot potato issues in this one statement. Abortion and state's rights. He would not impose morality on the masses from the federal, rather let the local constituency decide their moral fates. This is in no way statement saying that Fred Thompson is Pro Choice, because his voting record proves a little otherwise.

"We look at the fact that while there are various polls, and some are up and down, the overwhelming consensus has been that he is best positioned to top pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination," O'Steen said, "and also, looking at polls against the likely Democrats, he is well-positioned, and we believe best positioned, to win the presidency of the United States for unborn children."

Anti-abortion group: Thompson best candidate to beat Giuliani (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/thompson.endorsement/index.html)

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 02:12 PM

Seabee: link?

Suzie

12-27-2007, 02:41 PM

Everyone needs to remember when you post something, you must include a link. Those reading can then judge the value of the source, and remember you have no way of knowing if a blog post isn't the blog of the person posting it here. Anyone can start a blog and many places it's free. So blogs aren't exactly a credible source. That being said, Thompson does believe abortion is a State issue. Since I think it's murder I think it should be banned everywhere. But even so, Thompson's view is far better than the other choices we have IMO.

HomeschoolrsRUs

12-27-2007, 02:49 PM

Thompson does believe abortion is a State issue. Since I think it's murder I think it should be banned everywhere. But even so, Thompson's view is far better than the other choices we have IMO.

EXACTLY!

Let's compare what Fred Thompson (supposedly) said in the 1990's (according to a blog), with what Rudy Giuliani DID in the 1990's (according to CNN):

Giuliani donations to Planned Parenthood surface (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/giuliani.abortion/index.html)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his former wife donated money to Planned Parenthood, an abortion provider, old tax records show.

The organization provides other medical services to women and also advocates for abortion rights.

Federal tax returns show that the Republican presidential candidate and his ex-wife, Donna Hanover, donated money to Planned Parenthood at least six times during the 1990s.

One shouldn't bring a "blog" to a fact-fight, :)

Rhino

12-27-2007, 02:52 PM

It's a lie.

Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports
Some news reports from Thompson's 1994 campaign classified him as pro-choice. Thompson confesses to being perplexed over the confusion about his position on the issue: "I have read these accounts [about me being pro-choice] and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them, although I don't remember it."

But, he adds: "I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100% voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate." Planned Parenthood gave him a ZERO rating because of his pro-life voting record. NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) gave him an "F" rating when considering potential vice-presidential candidates in 2000.

Ultimately, however, Thompson is motivated on the issue from a personal level, not just a legalistic or moralistic viewpoint. He has said the issue "means more'' to him now because he has had two children in recent years. "I have seen the sonograms of my babies.''

Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.159-160 Jun 3, 2007http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Fred_Thompson_Abortion.htm

Rhino

12-27-2007, 02:56 PM

"I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice."

http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/05/fred_thompson_a.html

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 02:58 PM

Dang, Harv. You not havin' much luck.

Rhino

12-27-2007, 02:59 PM

Even CNN and The National Right to Life Committee know it was a lie.

Darla St. Martin, National Right to Life's co-executive director, said she was not concerned about reports before his 1994 Senate campaign that he was not a staunch advocate of abortion rights.

"In 1994, I flew down to Tennessee and personally met with Fred Thompson," St. Martin said. "And I came away assured that he was pro-life.

"So, whatever this other rumor was, it was not true. I talked to him. He was pro-life. We then endorsed him. He was elected as pro- life. And during all of this term, he voted pro-life."http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/thompson.endorsement/index.html

Rhino

12-27-2007, 03:03 PM

Life begins at conception, but allow early abortions
Q: You said in 1994 as a Senate candidate, "I'm not willing to support laws that prohibit early-term abortions. I'm not suddenly upon election as a senator going to know when life begins. It comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception. I don't know in my own mind if that is the case so I don't feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people." So you yourself don't know when life begins?

A: No. I didn't know then.

Q: You know now?

A: My public position has always been the same. I've been 100% pro-life in every vote that I've ever cast.

Q: Do you believe that life begins at conception, so abortion is the taking of a human life?

A: Yes, I do.

A: But you would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?

A: I do not think that you can have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I've got to recognize that fact.

Doesn't recall 1994 survey ok'ing abortion; doesn't ok it

Q: You checked a box in 1994 when you were running for Senate, where the box said, "Abortion should be legal in all circumstances for the first three months." That wasn't your voting record, interestingly. Did you make a mistake checking the box?

A: I don't remember that box. It was a long time ago, and I don't know if I filled it out or my staff, based on what they thought my position was, filled it out. But here's what the deal is on that. I've always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision. http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Fred_Thompson_Abortion.htm

I really like the way they put in "but allow early abortions", even though he said nothing of the sort.

Rhino

12-27-2007, 03:09 PM

Except for one major detail, Rudy opposes abortion.Except for one major detail, you haven't got a clue.

Rudy Giuliani on Abortion

Would probably not sign federal ban on all abortions. (Nov 2007)
Ultimate decision by woman, her conscience & her doctor. (Aug 2007)
2000: ran against Hillary as a pro-choice candidate. (Jul 2007)
Allowing choice keeps government out of people's lives. (May 2007)
Seek bipartisan ways to reduce abortion & increase adoption. (May 2007)
Forever against abortion; but respect others' choice. (May 2007)
Appoint constructionist judges, but no litmus test. (May 2007)
Would personally advise women against abortion. (May 2007)
1997:Supported partial birth; opposed parental notificiation. (May 2007)
Would not oppose strong pro-life plank of GOP platform. (May 2007)
Giuliani donated to Planned Parenthood throughout 1990s. (May 2007)
Ok to repeal Roe v. Wade, but ok to view it as precedent too. (May 2007)
Allow states to fund or not fund abortion. (May 2007)
Encourage adoptions; ban partial-birth abortion. (May 2007)
Embryonic stem cell research ok if limited properly. (May 2007)
FactCheck: Encouraged adoptions; but over-stated results. (May 2007)
Pro-choice; no ban on partial-birth abortions. (Dec 1999)
http://www.issues2000.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm

The details of the above positions, including his direct quotes on those positions:
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Abortion.htm

I notice he supported partial birth before he opposed it. The difference? He's running for president.

I'm starting to understand why you're so mixed up. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. And your researching skills suck.

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 03:11 PM

Welp, don't expect Harv to admit she was wrong. She don't do that.

Suzie

12-27-2007, 03:12 PM

I am so glad you posted this Harv, it has been a wealth of information to many I am sure. :lol:

Rhino

12-27-2007, 03:14 PM

It's hard to understand how someone can put their foot that far into their mouth.

Rhino

12-27-2007, 03:15 PM

Welp, don't expect Harv to admit she was wrong. She don't do that.I noticed.

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 03:21 PM

It's hard to understand how someone can put their foot that far into their mouth. Colin Powell wrote, "Don't let your ego get so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego falls with it." People whose egos ride on their positions feel the need to fight until whatever they're standing on is blown completely away. They're used to carrying their point by wearing out the opposition rather than proving anything. If they didn't have such an aversion to admitting error, they wouldn't have to fight so long after it became obvious they were wrong.

But, they say it takes all kinds. Dunno why it does, but there you are.

Rhino

12-27-2007, 03:25 PM

Every court needs a jester I guess.

Or every village needs an idiot, but something I can't put my finger on makes me resist using the term "village" for this place. Probably that stupid Hillary book.

Rhino

12-27-2007, 03:27 PM

I am so glad you posted this Harv, it has been a wealth of information to many I am sure. :lol:Maybe we should move it to the Fred forum since it highlights his anti-abortion stance so effectively. I was going to do that originally, but then Rudy got added into the mix.

Suzie

12-27-2007, 03:37 PM

I guess you could. I figure Harv will be back though when she is finished scanning the web for some place ANY place she can find her misquote posted somewhere other than on a blog. :lol:

But with the supporters Rudy has he really doesn't need any enemies, his supporters are so annoying to people with their willingness to go to the polls wearing a blind fold and a clothes pin on their nose to the point where many won't vote for him to be Mayor McCheese. Sort of like a lesser version of the Ron Paul team. Funny that many of them can see how annoying it is with Ron Paul but don't mind putting out all the false info on Rudy that we also know is a load of crap.

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 03:39 PM

I think folks just get set on their man and don't wanna hear anything bad about him.

Suzie

12-27-2007, 03:45 PM

Well I freely admit there are things about Fred I don't really care for. But for me he is by far better than any of the other choices. I really don't even LIKE any of the other candidates much less want to vote for them, so Fred could have many flaws and still be far better to me than any of the others.

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 03:49 PM

Among the reasons I like Fred is that, as they used to say, he looks presidential. The others look like girls (Hillary and Breck Girl), dirty old men (Giuliani), little boys playing at being men (Obama), and phonies (Paul and McCain).

I cain't think of no more or I'd keep going. :D

Rhino

12-27-2007, 03:51 PM

But with the supporters Rudy has he really doesn't need any enemies, his supporters are so annoying to people with their willingness to go to the polls wearing a blind fold and a clothes pin on their nose to the point where many won't vote for him to be Mayor McCheese. Sort of like a lesser version of the Ron Paul team. Funny that many of them can see how annoying it is with Ron Paul but don't mind putting out all the false info on Rudy that we also know is a load of crap.That has struck me too. Many of these tactics are far more likely to turn me away from Rudy rather than towards him, and others have as much as said the same thing. It's a little strange that the purveyors don't seem to catch on to that. But I guess blinders will do that to some extent or other.

Well I freely admit there are things about Fred I don't really care for. But for me he is by far better than any of the other choices. I really don't even LIKE any of the other candidates much less want to vote for them, so Fred could have many flaws and still be far better to me than any of the others.There's no such thing as a perfect match, but Fred comes closest for me. GW was never perfect for me either, but he was the best I had to choose from at the time.

Rhino

12-27-2007, 03:56 PM

I think folks just get set on their man and don't wanna hear anything bad about him.I don't necessarily have a problem with that if they avoid the habit of claiming that facts are not facts. However, maliciously propagating demonstrable lies about others just because they are set on their man is not acceptable, and most definitely will be ruthlessly challenged. If someone engages in behavior like that, they have no right to complain about the ferocity of the responses. Honest mistakes are a different story, but since Harv is apparently incapable of admitting a mistake, we don't have to worry much about that.

Lubbock

12-27-2007, 04:54 PM

I think folks just get set on their man and don't wanna hear anything bad about him.

I can't find anything bad about FDT.

I've been following his career for 30+ years, and I just can't find anything about the man that I find fault with.

There has been some "Poo Flinging" from some quarters, but it never sticks, and in the long-run, makes the "Flinger" look quite foolish.

EDIT: I cartainly don't know everything there is to know about FDT --I didn't mean to imply that.

I can't find fault in what I do know about him.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 05:45 PM

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 06:00 PM

Welp, don't expect Harv to admit she was wrong. She don't do that.

Thompson was pro-choice when he initially ran for the Senate regardless of how he has voted. Yet, the people here are calling Rudy and Romney a flip-flopper. Just wanted to point out the double standard and hypocrisy that is running rampant.

The following is NOT a blog. It's an interview with Russert on Meet the Press and the abortion part starts at the bottom of Page 3, and continues to 4.... It seems Thompson is rather unclear on his own position on a lot of issues, and is for states' rights on others just as Rudy is for states' rights:

MR. RUSSERT: I went back—we went back to your papers at the University of Tennessee and read through them. This is what you said back in 1994 as a candidate. Here’s the first one: “I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early-term abortions. I’m not suddenly upon election as a senator going to know when life begins and where that place ought to be exactly. It comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception. I don’t know in my own mind if that is the case so I don’t feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people.”

For transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21623208/

Suzie

12-27-2007, 06:14 PM

As long as he has voted against abortion as he has consistently he has been in the right. Fred's record supports life and it always has. Rudy's does not. How he voted or legislation he pushed for is all that matters no matter what you think he thinks privately, you can't back it up and it doesn't matter, he has always been pro life and his actions support it.

Seabee

12-27-2007, 06:18 PM

Seabee: link?

Got three of them up there DF. Been up there since I posted, lol.

Seabee

12-27-2007, 06:28 PM

Thompson was pro-choice when he initially ran for the Senate regardless of how he has voted. Yet, the people here are calling Rudy and Romney a flip-flopper. Just wanted to point out the double standard and hypocrisy that is running rampant.

Who is calling Giuliani or Romney a flip flopper. I have seen many threads on both of them and that phrase was never associated with either of them that I can recall.

Thompson was never Pro-Choice. He at one point was a weak Pro LIfer because some of the ideas about abortion conflicted with his state's right stances. Also, he has been quoted as saying his stances on Pro-Life were strengthened by seeing the sonogram of his 4 yr. old son. Giuliani has never indicated anything to that effect. Romney said he was wrong on being a Pro Choicer, if he switched camps then so be it. It still doesn't mean I am voting for him or Giuliani.

Rhino may have already posted this, if he did sorry for the redundancy.

Heart swayed by sonogram of his unborn child
[The abortion debate is] going to be ultimately won in the hearts and minds of people. I'm probably a pretty good example of that. Although my head and my legislative record's always been the same, when I saw that sonogram of my little now 4-year-old, it's changed my heart. It's changed the way I look at things. And I think life begins at conception. It was abstract to me before. I was a father earlier when I was very young. I was busy. One of the few advantages you have by getting a little bit older.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 4, 2007

Fred Thompson on abortion (http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Fred_Thompson_Abortion.htm) <----this is a link

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 06:29 PM

If you guys are gonna call Rudy and Romney flip-floppers, you'd need apply the same standards to Fred or you just aren't being objective, fair, or honest about it.

How about the National Review? Is that better than a blog?:rotflmbo:

From the article: Thompson has certainly voted with pro-lifers almost all the time. The National Right to Life Committee counts votes for John McCain-style campaign-finance reform, which Thompson supports, as anti-pro-life votes, but otherwise he's been solid. The senator voted against the Harkin amendment, which put the Senate on record favoring Roe v. Wade. But when Thompson ran for Senate in 1994, he did so as a supporter of legal abortion, as several press clips from the time pointed out. NR has also obtained a copy of a letter Thompson sent to a constituent in 1997, which notes that Thompson supports various restrictions on abortion but also includes the line, "I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area."

Source for story: http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr070600.html

ColonialMarine0431

12-27-2007, 06:34 PM

I like The Fred, but I agree that his past words on abortion aren't too great. And he backed McCain Feingold. UGH!!!!!!!!!

Suzie

12-27-2007, 06:34 PM

Who is calling Giuliani or Romney a flip flopper. I have seen many threads on both of them and that phrase was never associated with either of them that I can recall.

Thompson was never Pro-Choice. He at one point was a weak Pro LIfer because some of the ideas about abortion conflicted with his state's right stances. Also, he has been quoted as saying his stances on Pro-Life were strengthened by seeing the sonogram of his 4 yr. old son. Giuliani has never indicated anything to that effect. Romney said he was wrong on being a Pro Choicer, if he switched camps then so be it. It still doesn't mean I am voting for him or Giuliani.

Rhino may have already posted this, if he did sorry for the redundancy.

Fred Thompson on abortion (http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Fred_Thompson_Abortion.htm) <----this is a link

That would convince anyone. As I said in another thread. Most people true in their convictions will state what makes them hold the view they have, especially if it changes. And hopefully it's something more than they are playing politics. Of course Fred has never changed his view, it's just become stronger.

Seabee

12-27-2007, 06:38 PM

What is your point Harvick? There is more than enough evidence of that Thompson's record on being pro life was mildly weak when he was in the Senate, again because of the conflict with his stances on delegating morality to states through the Fed. (He later changed his mind.) corrected to- Suzie put it best, his stances got stronger. So what? No matter how much you keep digging this is pretty much all you are going to find in his legislation. No matter how many conspiracies you try and drum up, it ain't gonna happen. I mean what is next a link to Infowars? He is now pro life and Rudee isn't. Get over it and support your candidate. Your argument against Thompson is weak.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 06:46 PM

Its a states' right issue which is the same as Rudy believes. Yet, Rudy is being called pro-abortion and a flip-flopper....Hmmmm.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO_HA_0cdM0&NR=1

Seabee

12-27-2007, 06:51 PM

Rudee has never demonstrated anything about supporting state's rights in the past. Thompson, has been proven to be for state's rights and against abortion his whole career. So with that being said, if you want me to feed the animals I will. Until I see something from a fairly legitimate source stating that Giuliani has had this epiphany that switched his stances he qualifies in my book as a flip flopper who is only interested in getting votes.

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 06:54 PM

Thompson was pro-choice when he initially ran for the Senate regardless of how he has voted. Is this another "I am Harv and I just know" line? Where's your proof of this? Rhino posted link after link showing what that was all about, yet you persist in this lie that Thompson was ever pro choice. He never was. He was pro states' rights, and that took precedence in cases where there was a question about what was actually going on. Yet, the people here are calling Rudy and Romney a flip-flopper. Just wanted to point out the double standard and hypocrisy that is running rampant. No double standard. Rudy has indeed been on both sides of this issue. Rudy WAS pro-choice, as Rhino's links show. Romney has also been shown to be a flip flopper on abortion.

Harv, I'm beginning to doubt your honesty.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 07:03 PM

What is your point Harvick?

Seabee, I've made my point and quite well, I might add.

There is more than enough evidence of that Thompson's record on being pro life was mildly weak when he was in the Senate,

Don't I know it but someone needed to point it out to Rhino, and apparently Suzie (others Thompson supporters too) due to the fact that calling Romney (who has become pro-life) and Rudy (who thinks abortion should be a state right), flip-floppers is intellectually dishonest and being a hypocrite if not applying the same standard to Fred's views on it.. Rudy has said OUTRIGHT that he opposes abortion but it should be a state right whereas Fred hasn't said he opposes it but that it should be a state right. Just want the same standards applied to all GOP candidates.

It's not a weak argument, and I've shown exactly what I needed to concerning it.

We will all be voting but we need to open our eyes to ALL the facts. Mine are open.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 07:11 PM

Is this another "I am Harv and I just know" line? Where's your proof of this? Rhino posted link after link showing what that was all about, yet you persist in this lie that Thompson was ever pro choice. He never was. He was pro states' rights, and that took precedence in cases where there was a question about what was actually going on. No double standard. Rudy has indeed been on both sides of this issue. Rudy WAS pro-choice, as Rhino's links show. Romney has also been shown to be a flip flopper on abortion.

Harv, I'm beginning to doubt your honesty.

If you doubt my honesty, you must doubt Fred's because it came straight outta his mouth or perhaps you have difficulty understanding what he is saying. :rotflmbo:

I've posted the links. Take them or leave them.

Rudy and Romney are on the right side of the issue now and I welcome them instead of calling them flip-floppers. They have come to their senses just as Reagan did when he left FDR NEW DEAL views.

Suzie

12-27-2007, 07:12 PM

He HAS said he opposes abortion you just aren't listening or reading. Apparently not even your own links.

Longhorn_Platinum

12-27-2007, 07:12 PM

:moo: HarvickFan29, when are you going to regale us with all the reasons that you back Giuliani? I still haven't seen you give us any reason to join you in supporting him.

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 07:16 PM

Harvick never posts anything when it matters. She always refers to stuff years ago, or nonexistent stuff.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 07:20 PM

:moo: HarvickFan29, when are you going to regale us with all the reasons that you back Giuliani? I still haven't seen you give us any reason to join you in supporting him.

Welp, LP, this thread here is about Fred's view on abortion and how it has changed. However, if you want to see my reasons for supporting Rudy, I've posted them all over the board. All ya gotta do is read, my friend.

BTW, when I mentioned Rudy running in '08 on this board over 4 yrs. ago (I'm sure it's can be archived) you and I had many conversations about this too.

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 07:23 PM

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 07:25 PM

Harvick never posts anything when it matters. She always refers to stuff years ago, or nonexistent stuff.

Nonexistent stuff? What kinda stuff you be smokin', man? :noggin:

Longhorn_Platinum

12-27-2007, 07:25 PM

:moo: Why don't you post a link to it for me? It's not that I'm unwilling to read it, I just don't have the slightest idea where it would be. It certainly wasn't in that thread that I linked. It might even save you some time if you just just typed them for us here.

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 07:26 PM

She won't. They don't exist and she knows it, so she keeps referring to them as "all over the board." They aren't. No one here has seen them.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 07:29 PM

Just as everyone suspected, Harv doesn't read any but her own posts. LP posted that thread, Harv, and you never gave any reasons at all for why you think Rudy is more electable than others. You merely opined it. You never once provided links, just as you aren't providing links now.

I'm more interested in the topic of the thread, and the apparent hypocrisy here. My reasons for supporting Rudy are all over the board for any reading that you want to do. Go for it but I won't keep repeating them.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 07:34 PM

She won't. They don't exist and she knows it, so she keeps referring to them as "all over the board." They aren't. No one here has seen them.

NO ONE here has seen them? Guess they aren't reading in Politics or Elections. Way to try to hijack the thread. :rotflmbo:

Longhorn_Platinum

12-27-2007, 07:37 PM

HarvickFan29:
I'm more interested in the topic of the thread, and the apparent hypocrisy here. My reasons for supporting Rudy are all over the board for any reading that you want to do. Go for it but I won't keep repeating them.

:moo: I'm not asking you to repeat them. I just want you to tell us for the first time.

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 07:40 PM

I ask anyone here (but Harvick) to let us know, right now, in this thread, if they have seen Harvick posting anywhere else on the board, and to link to it so the rest of us can read these posts. Since she has only been back a few days, it shouldn't be hard to find -- if they're there.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 07:41 PM

I like The Fred, but I agree that his past words on abortion aren't too great.

They aren't, are they?

And he backed McCain Feingold. UGH!!!!!!!!!

Ugh, is right! However, I'll back the GOP nominee whomever he is because I sure would hate to see Hillary in the WH. I'm less of a party partisan (unlike most people I have seen on the Net) and more for what is best for the country.

Welcome to board! :thumb:

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 07:50 PM

:moo: I'm not asking you to repeat them. I just want you to tell us for the first time.

Since I've posted them before, scattered about in various threads, it WOULD be repeating them.

I ask anyone here (but Harvick) to let us know, right now, in this thread, if they have seen Harvick posting anywhere else on the board, and to link to it so the rest of us can read these posts. Since she has only been back a few days, it shouldn't be hard to find -- if they're there.

I havn't posted in any other threads? :rotflmbo: You have been smokin' something!

You guys are so interested why doncha' do a search?

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 07:52 PM

LP, and DF, here's a good idea if ya want to know what others are posting: Pay attention to threads and read them.

Back to Fred's change of views on abortion...........

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 07:58 PM

Longhorn_Platinum

12-27-2007, 08:21 PM

:moo: I took the time to search through her past posts, & I couldn't find her reasons for supporting The Ghoul, other than what we already knew...

•She thinks that it's the only one who can beat Swillary.

•She already knows that he's going to be the Republican nominee, so she wants to reserve her front-row seat to the inauguration now.

:moo: Although I did find a post where she told DoctorDoom that he should have his fortune read by a butt-reader.

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 08:26 PM

Why, her reasons are all over the board. :rolleyes:

Just not this board

Longhorn_Platinum

12-27-2007, 08:30 PM

:rotflmbo: At least she admitted that the butt-reader wasn't all she was cracked up to be. Get it? Cracked up to be? Ya gotta love her sense of humor.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 08:45 PM

From the archives that LP posted in the Bill-Rudy thread:

Yeah, the GOP had no problem and was eager to advance on Giuliani's popularity in the midterm election (2002) and they don't have any problem with him stumping in this upcoming election, even having him speak at the convention, along with Pataki, and Schwarzenegger who are also supporters of a woman's right to choose.

Giuliani is not a supporter of the pro-abortion movement. He was always opposed to abortion rights (Catholic) until he got elected and decided the issue should be a states rights issue where states have the right to ban abortion. But, the mayor of NYC has nothing to do with setting abortion policy.

I think the GOP can live with Rudy because he's not trying to change anyone's opinion just showing that he can put away his difference in views to work for the betterment of the country which means the GOP has to stay in power. He has certainly helped with that and earned his spot in the party.

In closing, if it is Rudy against Hillary in '08, the GOP will be thankful to Rudy for knocking Hillary out of political power, probably for good.

Those were my words from the archived thread that I urge everyone to read.

Here's more of my views: Rowland, Ridge, Wilson, Spector, Whitman, Pataki, Schwarzenegger, Cellucci, and President Bush are all GOP leaders that I can immediately think of that make exceptions or are not completely against abortion. Now I'm supposed to believe we don't have room for a man that can win the presidency because he believes states should have the final word on abortion??? Nonsense.

Here' the link to the thread that I'd like for the new members to the board to read as well as the members who've been here a while. I think you will find it interesting!

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13819

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 08:54 PM

Uh, Harvick, it may have escaped your notice, but I have over 20 times as many posts as you do. I have so many posts for a reason. The reason is that I'm here a lot. While here, I read a lot and, based on that reading, I post a lot.

It's evident that you don't care if anyone takes you seriously, because you're as evasive as Bill Clinton or Alger Hiss. You can do that if you wish but that tack irritates others and drives them to ignore you.

My guess is you're purposely tryin' to get the thread sent to Flame Wars and hijack it with nonsense, which by the way, is against board policy. I came to this board not long after you did and had 1000s of posts as well. I have never been one not to explain my positions and with great ability. Anyone here that is fair knows it.

Again, if you want to read my posts, do a search and stop askin' me to repeat my positions, especially in a thread that is of a different topic.

Back to the topic........

Suzie

12-27-2007, 08:57 PM

Here' the link to the thread that I'd like for the new members to the board to read as well as the members who've been here a while. I think you will find it interesting!

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13819

My views haven't changed a bit. Thanks. :thumb:

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 09:21 PM

Harvick, had you simply supplied that link earlier there would not now be anything to discuss on that score. Instead you evaded and evaded.

HomeschoolrsRUs

12-27-2007, 09:22 PM

Actions speak louder than words.

1. Thompson has a pro-life voting record.
Fred Thompson on Abortion (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

2. Giuliani has a record too ... of giving money to the largest abortion provider in this country.

Giuliani donations to Planned Parenthood surface (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/giuliani.abortion/index.html)
Federal tax returns show that the Republican presidential candidate and his ex-wife, Donna Hanover, donated money to Planned Parenthood at least six times during the 1990s.

Hmmm, which one should I believe? Which one appears to be truly "pro-life"? No matter how one tries to spin FDT's position on abortion, his actions tell the tale. Same with Rudy. The choice is clear.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/fred08.gif

Suzie

12-27-2007, 09:26 PM

Oh and let the record show I was wrong about McCain ... he did indeed run again. Guess he is even more bull headed than I thought. :huh:

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 09:32 PM

The record hereby thus reflects. :D

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 09:42 PM

[1. Thompson has a pro-life voting record.[Fred Thompson on Abortion (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm)[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=navy]2. Giuliani has a record too ... of giving money to the largest abortion provider in this country.

[SIZE=4]Giuliani donations to Planned Parenthood surface (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/08/giuliani.abortion/index.html)
Federal tax returns show that the Republican presidential candidate and his ex-wife, Donna Hanover, donated money to Planned Parenthood at least six times during the 1990s.

/]Hmmm, which one should I believe? Which one appears to be truly "pro-life"? No matter how one tries to spin FDT's position on abortion, his actions tell the tale. Same with Rudy. The choice is clear.

Not clear what choice you speak of. What choice is clear?

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 09:48 PM

Harvick, had you simply supplied that link earlier there would not now be anything to discuss on that score. Instead you evaded and evaded.

I didn't have that link until LP posted it in the Bill-Rudy thread. But, my views on Rudy are all over Elections and Politics. As I explained, I didn't evade anything but refused to keep repeating my views and didn't think it appropriate in a thread about an entirely different topic.

HomeschoolrsRUs

12-27-2007, 09:50 PM

Not clear what choice you speak of. What choice is clear?

The clear choice is someone who has a CLEAR pro-life voting record, rather than someone who has a CLEAR donation record to the largest abortion provider in this country.

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 09:50 PM

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 09:52 PM

The clear choice is someone who has a CLEAR pro-life voting record, rather than someone who has a CLEAR donation record to the largest abortion provider in this country.

So, you won't support Rudy if he gets the nomination?

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 09:57 PM

No, your views are NOT "all over" anything. "All over" would be MY views. Just check political and see how many threads were begun by DesertFox. Look in Society and Culture. Look in any of the most-used forums. THAT is "all over."

You haven't been here in, what, a year? More? Your stuff isn't "all over" anything or anywhere.

Since I've been back, I've made my views known in Politics and Elections mainly but I'm glad LP posted that old thread because not only is it interesting in many ways but it shows that I do articulate my views..

DesertFox

12-27-2007, 09:59 PM

It shows that you used to.

HomeschoolrsRUs

12-27-2007, 10:04 PM

So, you won't support Rudy if he gets the nomination?

I can't say yet, because there's a BIG "IF" in the way. I'll only consider crossing that bridge IF I have to. Right now all my energies are focused on getting Fred Thompson elected as the Republican nominee, because as Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, Fred Thompson is the only conservative running (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/30/the-maha-rushie-endorses-a-candidate/).
http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/FredT.gif

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 10:06 PM

It shows that you used to.

Aw, DF, as you said, I just got back.

Speaking of Fred, did anyone see him on H&C tonight? Of course the subject wasn't abortion but Bhutto's assassination.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 10:10 PM

I can't say yet, because there's a BIG "IF" in the way. I'll only consider crossing that bridge IF I have to. Right now all my energies are focused on getting Fred Thompson elected as the Republican nominee, because as Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, Fred Thompson is the only conservative running (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/30/the-maha-rushie-endorses-a-candidate/).
http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/FredT.gif

The reason I asked is because you have said that you would cross that line if the choice were Hillary and Rudy. So, I just wondered if you had changed your mind.

HomeschoolrsRUs

12-27-2007, 10:35 PM

The reason I asked is because you have said that you would cross that line if the choice were Hillary and Rudy. So, I just wondered if you had changed your mind.

Post the link to where I said that. (I have been doing a post search and have located no such statement as of yet.)

I believe I've been fairly consistent in saying that IF the choice came to them, I would have to pray (and fast) about whether or not I would vote for Rudy. I believe The_Elucidator can shed light on that truth too, as we had several discussions back and forth where he had tried to convince me to support Rudy should he (RG) get the nomination. I don't remember ever saying I WOULD vote for Rudy if he got the nomination.

I won't say I NEVER said it, but I don't remember saying it on any of the threads, and would like to see where that is located. I will absolutely amend my previous statement forthwith to reflect my position at this time.

Timberwolf

12-27-2007, 10:41 PM

My line has been drawn...if the Pubs give us a liberal, I'll vote for Snoopy or Scooby Doo or Underdog. I'm finished with "voting against the other guy" or "voting for the lesser of two evils". I'll vote FOR a candidate or I'll not vote at all. Period.

You go right ahead and vote for a liberal if ya want Harv, but I won't do it. Not even to keep Hitlery out of the WH...and I'm not the only CONSERVATIVE telling the RNC to get their head outta their ass on this issue, either.

HomeschoolrsRUs

12-27-2007, 10:50 PM

Well, it's not this one:

Not Hillary, but a Demunist Congress? Yes! (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=608968&highlight=Rudy+vote#post608968) Post #28
"I'm not as scared of Hillary as I am a democrat congress. They will be the ones who wield or give her the power. That is the only situation that keeps me from stating categorically that I will not vote for Rudy if he's the nominee. I will have some serious praying (and probably fasting too) if that is the case, but I'm banking on my man Fred winning so I don't have to cross that bridge yet."

... still looking.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 11:07 PM

Post the link to where I said that. (I have been doing a post search and have located no such statement as of yet.)

I believe I've been fairly consistent in saying that IF the choice came to them, I would have to pray (and fast) about whether or not I would vote for Rudy. I believe The_Elucidator can shed light on that truth too, as we had several discussions back and forth where he had tried to convince me to support Rudy should he (RG) get the nomination. I don't remember ever saying I WOULD vote for Rudy if he got the nomination.

I won't say I NEVER said it, but I don't remember saying it on any of the threads, and would like to see where that is located. I will absolutely amend my previous statement forthwith to reflect my position at this time.

No problem.

You said both these:

I am no fan of Rudy's politics, most specifically his stand on social issues, but I am very proud of how he handled 9/11, and his great speech at the RNC. The fact remains, he IS better than Hitlery!

It's post #10 :http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13819

I have to say, if the choices were Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, Independent (pro-life) candidate, or not voting. I would cast my vote, reluctantly, for Rudy Guiliani.

It's in post #28 http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13819&page=2

BTW, you can thank LP for bringing that thread back to life.

HarvickFan29

12-27-2007, 11:10 PM

HomeschoolrsRUs

12-27-2007, 11:41 PM

You said both these:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">I am no fan of Rudy's politics, most specifically his stand on social issues, but I am very proud of how he handled 9/11, and his great speech at the RNC. The fact remains, he IS better than Hitlery! </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
It's post #10 :http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/...ad.php?t=13819

Yep, I'll admit I did say that. But just because he is better than Hillary, doesn't mean he's right for this country, nor the Presidency. And after looking more closely at him, reviewing his stances on issues, it's more like saying a pirhana is better than a shark .... both can eat you up, just one will do it slower and take smaller bites.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">I have to say, if the choices were Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, Independent (pro-life) candidate, or not voting. I would cast my vote, reluctantly, for Rudy Guiliani. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
It's in post #28 http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/...t=13819&page=2 (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/...t=13819&page=2)

Yes, I did say that too, you were right (on this).

Now I'm glad I came to my senses. I have since amended my statement. And since I am the originator of both, I give myself permission to repost my updated comments here.

My Amended Statement: (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13819)
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by HomeschoolrsRUs
I have to say, if the choices were Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, Independent (pro-life) candidate, or not voting. I would cast my vote, reluctantly, for Rudy Guiliani.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Let me take this opportunity to revise and amend this statement right now.

After further review and research of Rudy Giuliani's stances on the issues as well as other information that has come up to shed light on his character, principles, and values, I can no longer state with ANY certainty, reluctantly or otherwise, that I could or will cast my vote for Ruy Giuliani (BIG) IF he get's the Republican nomination. IF I am faced with that bridge, I will indeed have to pray hard about how to proceed.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by HomeschoolrsRUs
It is my sincere hope that it will never come to this. I pray that the Republican Party at least has the sense to seek out a candidate that is the MOST representative of the party, socially as well as fiscally.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
My hope has been realized, and Fred Thompson IS the most representative of the party, socially as well as fiscally.

Rhino

12-28-2007, 07:04 AM

According to Suzie, blogs are not reliable sources.So pick one of the others. It isn't like there's a lack of them.

Rhino

12-28-2007, 07:11 AM

The following is NOT a blog. It's an interview with Russert on Meet the Press ...And it supports exactly what we've been saying and posting, not what you have. You need to stop posting malicious lies and innuendo as a means of disrupting things here.

Rhino

12-28-2007, 07:12 AM

Who is calling Giuliani or Romney a flip flopper.I haven't used the word, but Rudy has indeed flip-flopped on several important issues. Romney I'm not sure of.

Rhino

12-28-2007, 08:27 AM

I never thought I'd see the day that we'd have a conservative troll disrupting the board.

Harvick is outta here.

HomeschoolrsRUs

12-28-2007, 08:41 AM

Harvick is outta here.

:claps:

Longhorn_Platinum

12-28-2007, 08:56 AM

HarvickFan29:
That's ok, there's still time to convince you.

:moo: I don't have time to go looking for it, but didn't she say that she wasn't here to convince us?

Longhorn_Platinum

12-28-2007, 08:59 AM

HarvickFan29:
Yeah, the GOP had no problem and was eager to advance on Giuliani's popularity in the midterm election (2002) and they don't have any problem with him stumping in this upcoming election, even having him speak at the convention, along with Pataki, and Schwarzenegger who are also supporters of a woman's right to choose.

Giuliani is not a supporter of the pro-abortion movement. He was always opposed to abortion rights (Catholic) until he got elected and decided the issue should be a states rights issue where states have the right to ban abortion. But, the mayor of NYC has nothing to do with setting abortion policy.

I think the GOP can live with Rudy because he's not trying to change anyone's opinion just showing that he can put away his difference in views to work for the betterment of the country which means the GOP has to stay in power. He has certainly helped with that and earned his spot in the party.

In closing, if it is Rudy against Hillary in '08, the GOP will be thankful to Rudy for knocking Hillary out of political power, probably for good.

:unsmile: I saw that, but it doesn't address issues. It's all about keeping the GOP in power.

Lazarus

12-28-2007, 09:53 AM

I never thought I'd see the day that we'd have a conservative troll disrupting the board.

Harvick is outta here.Sure looked like she came here with the sole intent of getting banned... Im glad we were able to ablige her...

Ya know I never really had any problem with anyone here who chooses to support a different candidate than the one I support - its a question of personal concience... But there are very few of the candidates themselves, at least on the Pub side, that I feel compelled to actively take a stand against... But of all the candidates on the slate, I cannot see what it is about Fred Thompson that is so threatening as to motivate someone to conduct such a campaign of personal destruction toward...

I got the feeling that since Rudy has slipped from his exalted position in recent weeks, and Fred is slowly, steadily rising (not to mention the choice of the majority of this board), that she was incensed and determined to bring disrepute to the name of Fred...

As if that would breathe life into Rudy's stalled campaign...

Suzie

12-28-2007, 10:00 AM

Rudy is sinking in the polls faster than a bag of wet dirt in the river right now. He's even saying now he doesn't have to win Florida (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usrudy1227,0,6401917.story?track=rss), which if you look at the Meet the Press interview (seems like it was his Howard Dean moment) he was very excited about Florida. Now he seems to know that one has slipped from view as well. I was worried about it before, but it doesn't seem like he will even come close to getting the nomination now.

Longhorn_Platinum

12-28-2007, 10:02 AM

:unsmile: I like HarvickFan29, & I hate to see her go, but she brought it on herself. This all started in another thread, when I commented that her only reason for supporting The Ghoul is that she thought that he was the only Republican who could beat Swillary. She denied that, but refused to give any other reason.

Suzie

12-28-2007, 10:10 AM

Well there's one down. Can we go for a trifecta today? :evilgrin:

Timberwolf

12-28-2007, 01:11 PM

That's ok, there's still time to convince you. I seem to remember you saying something like this about Bush.
No, I didn't. I did say, however, that anyone who thinks Bush is a conservative is dreaming (or something to that effect).

Too bad you had to keep up with the lies about FDT's position on abortion, Harv...had you just admitted you were wrong, you could still be here trying to convince me to vote for a liberal.

DesertFox

12-28-2007, 01:30 PM

Harv never admits to error. Not once. Ever.

Lazarus

12-28-2007, 02:16 PM

I know abortion is a hot button issue for many here, but Fred's stand on abortion, up or down, is really rather irrelevant... The Executive Branch is the one branch out of the three that is least capable of having a direct effect on the issue... Abortion is now and has always been a quesiton for Congress in the form of Legistlation or the Supreme Court in the form of a constitutional ruling...

Yes of course the President nominates the Federal Judges and SCOTUS justices - So, yes, he MAY have the opportunity to change the balance of the court... But that is a rather INdirect effect on the subject...

Besides, whether or not Fred Thompson is a fire-breathing Pro-Lifer or a lukewarm Pro-choicer, does anyone here in their wildest imagination think that President Fred Thompson is going to appoint anything to the left of a solid Conservative to any Federal bench?

With Fred Thompson in the Whitehouse, if a SCOTUS seat comes open, that court is going to shift to the right for the first time in.......well........My lifetime I suppose...

What we really need to be concerned about in regards to the SCOTUS is who controls the Senate... We get so tangled up over the Presdient we often forget that we MUST retake control of the Senate if we are to swing the high court to the right... And there lies the fate of decisions on not just abortion but gun control, private property rights, etc...