Cameron falsely claimed Thompson is "consistently pro-life"
On the May 31 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron falsely asserted that former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) "is ... consistently pro-life." In fact, on July 29, 1993, the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that Thompson, then running for a Tennessee U.S. Senate seat, said during an interview that he "supports the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion." In an October 21, 1994, article, The Washington Post similarly reported that "both" Thompson and his Democratic opponent in the 1994 Senate race, then-Rep. Jim Cooper, "believe in legal abortion."
Further, as The New York Sun's "Latest Politics Blog" reported, Thompson indicated in a 1994 Project Vote Smart questionnaire that he believed "[a]bortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy" (while also indicating his support for numerous restrictions).
According to a March 12 Associated Press article, Thompson now says that he "[i]s 'pro-life' and believes federal judges should overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision as 'bad law and bad medical science.' "
From the May 31 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
CAMERON: Mitt Romney is affected too and perhaps a lot. He's a Mormon, aggressively courting social conservatives, though he was pro-choice just two years ago. Well, Thompson is a Southerner and consistently pro-life and conservative. Evangelical leaders are more enthusiastic about his candidacy than any other.
Here we go again, Republicans flip flopping or are they like to call is "changing there minds" or "kissing a** to get the support of the evangelicals".
Pealene,
I don't think this is as much about Thompson's changing position as it is Cameron's saying he has been consistent, which this website is correct in pointing out - he has not.
Cameron was spinning in Thompson's favor to paint him as more acceptable to the pro lifers in the Republican party.
Tommy, you are right but it bugs me that they (Mitt and Fred) can "change their minds" regarding something that had been a major part of the Republican platform and MSM thinks it OK. Let a Dem "change his/her mind" and it's presented as unsure, confused or the famous "flip flop".
If any candidate has a change of heart, explain it and go on. That's find with me. But to say one is "flip flopping" and the other has a "change of heart" is disingenuous.
Pearlene, On that we agree.
I am perfectly comfortable with candidates who change their minds on issues based on new information or maturity or whatever, except political expediency. Yet, when they can't explain it or try to equivocate, or parse words in some semantic idiocy - then I know it's politically motivated.
I would disagree. Mitt has BY NO MEANS given a free ride. In fact, if anything ends up stopping his campaign, his flips will do it. While I'm no Mitt fan, I am an active watcher of the news media and that has been the tendency. Yes, John Kerry was called out on it, but that was more attributable to the genius of the "Master of the Dark Arts" Karl Rove
Hillary, on the other hand, continues to lead in polls in spite of her vote on the Iraq war. No uncertainty here, just education, experience, etc. (at least according to the MSM).
It may be fli-flopping for Thompson, but the dems flip just as much.
Possibly, he changed his position. I was pro-choice all the wa in the 90's, the earlier the time the more pro-choice.
Not anymore. First trimester fine. Other than that (unless a medical emergency) no abortions for any reason.
Ehull, I am pro-choice. First trimester OK. If the mother's health is in danger OK .
Women do not decide to get abortions like making a nail appointment, It's not a easy decision and pro-lifers tend to make is seem like a woman who is pro-choice just decides to schedule an abortion between her hair and nail appointment. NOT TRUE.
Personal decision relating to a woman's health should be decided between a woman and her doctor NOT politicians.
When Republicans are running for office they change there minds to suit their party's platform. Mitt was pro-choice when he wanted to get elected in Mass but when he took his campaign national and needed the evangelicals support he became pro-life. He then tried to say he always been against abortions. MSM does not want to point out that difference and call it what it is. If Thompson has an explanation for his change, I'm all ears, if not I consider him flip flopping like Mitt.
- pro-lifers tend to make is seem like a woman who is pro-choice just decides to schedule an abortion between her hair and nail appointment. - pearly
Dr. McMahon, a hall of fame abortion doctor, submitted a report to congress detailing over 2000 abortions that he had performed.
He detailed that only 9% were for maternal health reasons...and of those reasons...most were for depression.
Dr. Haskell, another hall of fame abortion doctor, said 80% of the abortions he performed were elective...and not related to the health of the mother.
In addition, Haskell described the procedure as "a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia"...easily worked in between nail and hair appointments.
Wesley, my name is Pearlene or Pearl NOT Pearly.
Hush, you. We men will decide what you can do with your body or your name.
- Women do not decide to get abortions like making a nail appointment - pearlene
Dr. Harrison, another hall of fame abortionist, who by his own admission has performed over 12,000 abortions has this to say:
- I can't tell you how satisfying it is, when two weeks after a young woman has come in distraught and thinking that her life is ruined, and she comes back two weeks after the abortion and she is a new woman. She's been given her life back....I've had lots of patients who come in for second, third, fourth, fifth, even one who had nine abortions.
Nine abortions...what a medical miracle...nine times distraught with a ruined life...and nine times returned to life...talk about convenience.
See, Pearl? You women folk can't be trusted to make decisions. Some of you go off and act irresponsibly. Again, it's best if you just let us men folks take care of all those things for ya. Don't you worry you're purdy little head, girl.
Bittermarve, I just don't know what I would do. You see I can help create a fetus but my gosh I just know know what to do after that. What's a girl to do. I guess I'll have to ask my congressman, senator or by gosh my president.
We men feel your pain. Except that we don't. Now be gettin' us a beer, hon, and then take yourself a warm bath and stop worryin'.
What would I do without you men. I mean life is just so hopeless without your wise choices.
Somewhere, probably in a newspaper was talk of implanting a fetus into a male abdomen bringing it to term and delivery by ,I suppose, by a cesarian type of delivery.
I get some evil thoughts here about a certain loud population. You really want that fertillzed egg to become a live baby. We may have and option for you here, baby.
Should women be allowed to take illegal drugs and engage in Prostitution as well? It's her body, right?
OK with me, Rino. But then, I'm pretty liberal and like to keep government out of things.
Wait... you want gubmint OUT of our private lives? I thought that meant you were a Republican!
I want government to be my (our) employee, doing collective dirty work and keeping an eye on the worst of human nature (violence, greed, prejudice) while keeping out of personal bizness.
Now, if I were a corporation and wanted gov. out of my business, then I might be a Republican.
Most republicans want to shrink government down till its just big enough to fit into your bedroom
Abortions are performed in bedrooms now? That's interesting.
I think he was trying to point out the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives are more interested in private morality while liberals are more interested in public morality. Conservatives want to know what you’re doing in your bedroom and want to know what choices a person is making concerning his or her body (i.e. abortion or right to die issues), etc. Liberals want know who is poor among us, who among has no healthcare, etc.
"Conservatives want to know what you’re doing in your bedroom"
Huh? Which conservatives are you talking about? I don't know of any conservatives like that. Is there some pending anti-sodomy legislation that I don't know about? Abortions are performed in public buildings, not private homes. It's not a privacy issue at all. It's a human rights issue. And no, it has nothing to do with the woman's body either. The baby isn't a literal part of the woman's body like her feet or arms are. The woman's body is merely a holding place for the baby before it's born. It's like a car that's in a garage. The car is in the garage, but it's not an actual part of the garage. The government has an obligation to protect innocent human life. It has nothing to do with privacy or "civil liberties."
“Huh? Which conservatives are you talking about? I don't know of any conservatives like that. Is there some pending anti-sodomy legislation that I don't know about?”
Several states did have anti-sodomy laws until the Supreme Court struck them down recently. Conservatives are too concerned with people’s private life particularly anything to do with homosexuality, family orientation other than nuclear, and people who enjoy casual sex or sex with multiple partners.
“Abortions are performed in public buildings, not private homes. It's not a privacy issue at all.”
I believe a woman has liberty over her own body; you apparently don’t believe women have liberty over their own body.
“It's a human rights issue.”
It’s the perceived fetuses’ right versus a woman’s right to carry a pregnancy to term or to end a pregnancy.
“And no, it has nothing to do with the woman's body either.”
I believe it does.
“The baby isn't a literal part of the woman's body like her feet or arms are. The woman's body is merely a holding place for the baby before it's born.”
We have differences as to when life begins.
“It's like a car that's in a garage. The car is in the garage, but it's not an actual part of the garage.”
I would consider your analogy more like adoption. You go out and get a car and you put in your garage.
“The government has an obligation to protect innocent human life. It has nothing to do with privacy or ‘civil liberties.’”
Again, we have differences as to when life begins. And I also believe the government should not tell a woman what to do with her own body.
Also, the Supreme Court said the states have an obligation to protect innocent human life during the third trimester and abortion can be regulated during the second trimester.
"Several states did have anti-sodomy laws until the Supreme Court struck them down recently. Conservatives are too concerned with people’s private life particularly anything to do with homosexuality, family orientation other than nuclear, and people who enjoy casual sex or sex with multiple partners"
There may be SOME social conservatives who support anti-sodomy laws and other laws against certain sexual acts in bedrooms. But I'm definetely not one of them, and most small government, libertarian conservatives like myself want no such laws. I think that the government has the responsibility to protect innocent life, but I don't think that they should try to control what someone does in their own bedroom. I believe that most conservatives feel the same way.
and yet somehow those laws were passed and were on the books. you're not saying liberals were responsible for them?
No. I'm saying that I don't support laws against sodomy, and I don't believe that most genuine conservatives do either. If you support laws against sodomy that allows the government to regulate what you do in your own bedroom, then you aren't a true conservative. Conservatives stand for smaller government and individual freedom. Where I draw the line at is when another person's well being is affected. I agree with the saying, "Your freedom ends at another man's nose."
you're splitting hairs. you're saying that "true" conservatives don't believe in those laws. but somehow they got passed, and it wasn't because liberals are for them. liberals are much more likely to be against those kinds of laws. when the supreme court overturned those laws, it was thomas, scalia, and rhenquist who dissented. last time i checked, they are conservatives.
"when the supreme court overturned those laws, it was thomas, scalia, and rhenquist who dissented"
And Thomas also made it very clear in his dissent that he personally disagreed with the law, but he felt that the state of Texas had the right to make the law, since the Constitution says absolutely nothing about the issue of sodomy. I completely agree. While I'm completely opposed to anti-sodomy laws as well, I feel that the people should still have the right to VOTE on an issue. That's what happens in a democracy. The people VOTE on issues that the Constitution is silent on. Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenquist simply wanted to give the people the right to VOTE on the issue. They didn't come out personally in favor of the sodomy law. There's a big difference between merely interpreting the law and making public policy. The liberals on the court decided to impose their public policy views on everybody else.
“And Thomas also made it very clear in his dissent that he personally disagreed with the law, but he felt that the state of Texas had the right to make the law, since the Constitution says absolutely nothing about the issue of sodomy.”
This is the thing about conservatives: they keep on misinterpreting what the Constitution does. The Constitution does not give us rights or take them away; it was written to limit the power of government. The founders were against the government having sweeping powers and passing laws that violated our inalienable rights as Americans and as human beings. As a human being you and I have every right imaginable and if any of the rights infringes on someone else's right the government passes a law to restrict it (this is the only circumstance under which the government should pass laws restricting our rights) but the catch is that the law cannot conflict with Constitution. The abortion laws were struck down because the state tried to limit a woman’s liberty, a violation of the due process clause in the fourteenth amendment. Likewise, the Sodomy laws were overturned because of the clause. Scalia and Thomas are searching for something that is impossible to find.
“While I'm completely opposed to anti-sodomy laws as well, I feel that the people should still have the right to VOTE on an issue.”
Again, the issue that people are voting on cannot conflict with the Constitution. Do you think states should have the right to vote on slavery?
“The people VOTE on issues that the Constitution is silent on”.
The Constitution doesn’t give us right to walk on the sidewalk; should we vote on that? The Constitution doesn’t give us the right to chew gum; should we vote on that? You and other conservatives are looking at the Constitution the wrong way.
“Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenquist simply wanted to give the people the right to VOTE on the issue. They didn't come out personally in favor of the sodomy law.”
Personally, I don’t think Scalia, Thomas or Rehnquist know what the Constitution is about.
“There's a big difference between merely interpreting the law and making public policy. The liberals on the court decided to impose their public policy views on everybody else.”
They didn’t impose anything; those states tried to impose laws that violated the Constitution by restricting the liberties of certain segments of the population and the Court did its duty.
you're correct. he and other conservatives keep insisting that if it's not in the constitution, then you have no right to do it, and that other people can vote your rights away. talk about the big government supporters.
"and like to keep government out of things"
If that's the case then I guess you're a libertarian and not a liberal, because liberals definetely don't like to keep the government out of things.
Sorry, Rino, I meant personal things, the nunna-yer-bizness type of things.
Most Liberals like to make government work for us, not against us. You've heard the idea of the Mommy vs. Daddy state? The position that Conservatives want a protective, authoritarian government, while liberals want a nurturing, providing one?
I guess there;s some truth to it, but I've always considered government to be an employee, or more simply, like our kids..We go to work, give them room and board and an allowance (taxes), and expect them to get some chores done.
Unlike kids, if they're not pulling their weight, we can trade them out every few years.I'm sure you hear all sorts of talk about the huge government, big tax Democrats, but check your returns from ,say, 1999 and 2006, and see how drastic the difference is. Not much, probably, except you might have kept more in the bank in '99.
Maybe liberals have too much dopey optimism in thinking it's possible to run an effective government, but I'll take that over a gang that promises that government is incompetent to get elected, then proves it.
Liberalism, to me, means loving America enough to care about our standing in the world, and not bitching and whining when it comes time to kick in your dues, especially if you're lucky enough to be liable for a bigger share than somebody else.
BTW, as there are many different varieties of liberalism as there are made-up reasons for invading Iraq, I am speaking only for myself here.
You're not fooling anyone, HBL.
We all know what kind of a so-called liberal you REALLY are!
You're a pro-big-government, tax raising, revenue-spending, war-resisting, al Qaeda-loving, baby-killing, gay marriage-supporting, religion-trashing, dirty-talking, pornography-watching, ACLU-contributing, Marxist, Socialist, Anarchist, brain-washing, God-denying, illegal immigrant-hiring, Stalinist, blue state-living, post-writing, Prius-driving, tree-hugging, corporate-demonizing, Kennedy-loving, vegetable-eating, dope-smoking, welfare-enabling, anti-gun, anti-Reagan, wealth-envying, Gypsy-loving, Israel-bashing, poverty-decrying, flag-burning, Darfur-weeping, tradition-defying, unpatriotic, Nazi, Boy Scout-berating, Laker-loving, loony, libertine, sullen, hateful, treasonous, America-bashing & ungrateful dues-paying extremist member of the far left!
Hey... now that I think of it... well better than two thirds of what I just accused you of applies to ME!
Jeeez... life is better than I thought.
Laker-loving? I don't even follow basketball, liar! I do have a soft spot for my hapless Los Angeles Anaheim Angels of Anaheim Los Angeles, who by the way, last weekend swept a 3 game series with Jeters mighty Yankees, but that's off topic.
Rest of the stuff you nailed me on, Mescal. You should see the size of my business card.
Liar am I?
I guess that qualifies me to run for office.
At the very least, I'm ready for my own Faux News show.
Once again the mindless brainwashed, braindead take on what a LIBERAL believes from a CONSERVATIVE. Take a pill. A reality pill would be nice.
I was just pointing out that libertarians support a smaller and less intrusive government on just about every issue while liberals support a smaller government on most social issues and national security issues, but they support a much bigger government on economic issues. These are well established facts. It's not just my own opinion.
To choose just one thing wrong with this incredibly simplistic generalization there ARE liberal libertarians. Bill Mahar for instance. In fact
http://libertarianwiki.org/Liberal
American libertarianism is generally considered to be part of the liberal tradition; libertarians sometimes take the label "classic liberal".
You forgot the part right underneath that.
"In modern America, "liberalism" is generally interpreted to include more progressive or socialist characteristics, such as those represented by the "New Deal", and is emobodied in the Democratic Party. The paleoliberal movement is a response to this change of liberal philosophy"
Yes, Classic liberals are the same as today's libertarians. But the concept of what it means to be a liberal has changed. The difference between liberals and libertarians is now like night and day. But actually, if you're right and liberals and libertarians are quite similar, then I guess I'm more liberal than I thought, because I take a libertarian view on MOST issues.
I didnt say liberals and libertarians were quite similar. Which is why I didnt put the rest in as its irrelevant to the point I am making. There are right leaning libertarians and left leaning libertarians. ITS NOT THAT SIMPLE. People arent just one thing even in their political orientation. Libertarianism appeals to a certain segment on both sides of the aisle. So railing about the difference between liberals and libertarians is like railing between the difference between red and cars they are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
All I have to say is you must SUCK in the sack!
Women and men already do both. It's there choice. But as far as I know only women can carry a fetus and give birth.
"Should women be allowed to take illegal drugs and engage in Prostitution as well? It's her body, right?" Rino
Where do I even start with you. I can do anything I want isn't that the ENTIRE point of "freedom" pot and lsd are awesome I only wish I could administer it to you so you could realize what a living hell you force yourself to reside in. No SEX, no DRUGS!!!
You just don't get it and that is sad. Nothing feels better than sex and drugs and I LOVE THEM! Take your mythological morality and cram it where the sun don't shine I don't need your flashlight shining in my life and telling me about your god. Drop dead freak it's over. Welcome to reality where I can do WHATEVER the hell I please including charing top dollar for my tail.
I am sure your spouse is sooooooooooooo pleased with your repression.
"pot and lsd are awesome"
That explains a lot. But seriously, you have some major problems that even I can't help you with. You need to check yourself into rehab before you fry all your brain cells.
Your the one that hates personal freedom, not me. You say what should "women" be allowed to do drugs and engage in prostitution and I say HELL YA! What else is freedom? I can ask any man for anything if he wants my "sex" AND I can take any drug I want and I stand behind marijuana 100% (and LSD).
Keep to your own life and your own version of morality because MY GOD doesn't share your standards.
"Should women be allowed to take illegal drugs and engage in Prostitution as well? It's her body, right?" --rino hunter
Why not? That should be the question.
A woman's body and her choice.
Without the woman you do not have a fetus.
You have sited two "famous" doctors as your proof that what, one woman had nine abortions?
And your point would be what?
What is the population of females in the US and what percentage does your so called famous doctors treat.
What is your point!!! Do you have one!!!!
The three "famous doctors" that I cited have done things like testify before congress and been interviewed on national news shows...a tiny bit more credible than a bunch of old ladies gabbing under the hair dryer.
Do try to get to town more often.
This is why I won't respond to you again. I can have a conversation with someone and disagree without being rude, which you are unable to do.
Why don't you try having a uterus FIRST and three children and then get under the hair dryer yourself.
In the future try to expand your small mind instead. I could be really rude and comment about other things that you have that are small and need expanding but I will refrain.
I don't think he can hear you over your hair dryer.
Gotta admit: Wish I thought of that hair dryer thing first. I thought my parody was good, but that was something else altogether.
Yours made me laugh and his made me wish that I had either a hot plate full of grits or oil. He's too young to understand the grits/Al Green story. You probably are too.
PS. Hollywood has testified before congress and on new shows and according to the conservatives they are credible either.
"A woman's body and her choice"
You need to quit making this about gender, because it has absolutely nothing to do with gender. Abortion is a human rights issue. If men were capable of getting pregnant and having children, I would oppose their "right" to get an abortion as well. It has absolutely nothing to do with gender and everything to do with protecting innocent human life. This "choice" that women have has led to the murder of 45 million babies since 1973. That's an absolute holocaust. It's over four times as many deaths as the Jewish people experienced during the holocaust in WWII. Abortion is the evil of our time, and Republicans and conservatives stand on the moral side of this issue, just as we stood on the moral side of the slavery issue and demanded that the slaves be freed.
It has to do with protecting the privacy rights of an adult woman over the rights of a fetus to survive to term.
If you protect the rights of a fetus and force that woman to be an incubator against her will, you eliminate the rights of the adult woman. No fetus should be more important than a woman's right to control her own body!
I have to think that if the counterparts of the modern day Republicans fought to free the slaves, it was only because they crunched the numbers and figured out that room and board cost more than minimum wage.
If men we capable of getting pregnant
They can't and I would not oppose them having abortions because as an adult, it's their choice
Murder of 45 million babies, human rights issue
Both men and women have rights, but you want to take away a fundamental right of choice for women.
Rino were are not in this lifetime going to agree. I respect your opinion and hope that you can respect mine as well.
How come its better for a woman to make the choice to end her fetus' life instead of keeping her legs closed? Seriously, The number of abortions is not proportional to the number of women that NEED it.
Ok an adult has the right to decide what their body goes through, I didnt want to have a baby before I was ready. So I used birth control and I kept my pants on. I feel taking such a casual opinion of abortion give people (especially kids) the feeling that they can have casual unprotected sex because, hey, worst case, I can get an abortion.
Condoms on bannanas and day after pills are not the answer either, try some self respect, morality, and some dicipline or what? you too lazy to practice those let alone teach your kids those virtues.
Over 6.5Million abortions since 2000, dont tell me that all of them were necessary procedures.
Thanks, Beansy.
You've unintentionally revealed what the TRUE issue is to the so-called Pro Life crowd. Its about the state controlling other people's sex lives... particularly the sex lives of women. It is the traditional impulse... the tribal instinct...still attempting to wreak havoc in a modern world. Its the angry, dogmatic moralizing of of people still mired in a world nearly two millenia gone, determined at all costs to put a stop to people choosing to live outside of their sputtering & ancient limitations. They don't give a rat's ass about these "babies" once they're born, but... still in the womb... their compassion is boundless. Stunningly short lived, but boundless none the less.
Because if society can control the womb, it can control women.
I can't remember who it was, but someone once said that if men could become pregnant then abortion would be a sacrament. Amen. But this isn't about men... except for an age-old desire to control women. That's why terms such as 'discipline' & 'keeping their legs shut' are so revealing. Ever notice that the ones so fanatically committed to denying women their reproductive rights are also equally committed to denying sex education to young people? They are adamant that Abstinence Only programs be allowed complete hegemony when it comes to sex education... despite the embarrassingly dismal results that these programs have accrued. Actual knowledge being given to young people is too radical a concept for them, for that would surely result in individuals making their own decisions, rather than simply bowing before the massive dead weight of tradition. To these 'cultural warriors', enforced ignorance is a requisite condition to controlling our young.
And so they seek to impose the force of the state against the twin desires of biology & liberty, for that is their only real recourse. It takes such societal & political muscle & intimidation to successfully warp the natural human impulses of sensuality, desire, love, & freedom. It is their reactionary desire to claw their way backwards to the reality that came to dominate the peoples of the deserts & the steppes that has come to equally dominate their mindsets in a world that offers... as far as they're concerned... far too many cultural, intellectual, & sexual options. It is a regressive instinct. It seeks to CONTROL life... & all that that entails... rather than encourage it.
"Its about the state controlling other people's sex lives... particularly the sex lives of women"
Controlling sex lives? When has anybody ever said that women shouldn't be allowed to have sex or even use birth control pills? I haven't seen anybody on this site advocate that. What Beansy said was simply the truth. If women don't want to get pregnant, they should either not have sex or use birth control pills to keep from becoming pregnant. It's that simple. Abortion is just an easy way out. Most abortions are done simply for convenience, because men and women can't control their sexual impulses. Nobody is saying that the government should interfere in that decision making process, but both women and men should be more responsible and think what the potential consequences might be.
"of their sputtering & ancient limitations. They don't give a rat's ass about these "babies" once they're born, but... still in the womb... their compassion is boundless"
I could turn it around and say the same thing about liberals. Liberals seem to care about children once they are born and want to completely run and control their lives, but when they are in the womb, they don't care about them at all and want no legal protections for them. So much for "compassionate liberalism." Also, conservatives still care about children after they are born. But we just want to give them freedom and not have a big and intrusive federal government hanging over their shoulders.
"But this isn't about men... except for an age-old desire to control women. That's why terms such as 'discipline' & 'keeping their legs shut' are so revealing"
It sounds like the person who you were responding to is a woman. This was the quote she used: "Ok an adult has the right to decide what their body goes through, I didnt want to have a baby before I was ready. So I used birth control and I kept my pants on" Many women are pro life and believe abortion should only be legal in the most extreme circumstances. It has nothing to do with "men controlling women." Your argument falls flat.
“I could turn it around and say the same thing about liberals. Liberals seem to care about children once they are born and want to completely run and control their lives, but when they are in the womb, they don't care about them at all and want no legal protections for them.”
If I believed that life began at conception (which I think you believe) than you would have a point. I think life begins at viability.
“So much for ‘compassionate liberalism.’ Also, conservatives still care about children after they are born. But we just want to give them freedom and not have a big and intrusive federal government hanging over their shoulders”.
Giving them freedom alone won’t help feed them.
“It sounds like the person who you were responding to is a woman. This was the quote she used: "Ok an adult has the right to decide what their body goes through, I didnt want to have a baby before I was ready. So I used birth control and I kept my pants on" Many women are pro life and believe abortion should only be legal in the most extreme circumstances. It has nothing to do with "men controlling women." Your argument falls flat.”
I think people in general are against abortion but they won’t impose their beliefs on other people. The decision to carry a pregnancy to term or to end it should be left to the women; it’s her body.
And I do think a lot of conservative men (and some conservative women) are angry that the feminist movement occurred and want to return to a time when men made all the decisions for women.
Thanks for standing up for me, but I am a man.
My comments are not sexist, give it up already, they were used in context accusing both men and women of being unresponsible with their sexual acts.
I found it strange that you claimed to use birth control AND you kept your pants on in order to avoid pregnancy. You couldn't possibly have done BOTH. They are mutually exclusive.
Did you have sex even when you didn't want a baby? What kind of birth control did you use? Was it the ever elusive "100% effective" kind?
It appears the only real difference between yourself and these people you criticize is they weren't as lucky as you and had to make a tough choice. Considering you apparently never had to make that choice yourself, it seems a bit disingenuous and patronizing for you to criticize other people for it, while giving advice they very well may have followed, but not been as lucky as you were.
They aren't children when they're in the womb, numbskull. They're fetuses!
wow. you might want to go have a doctor evaluate your mental health. you appear to be showin some signs of dellusion and schizophrenia.
my agenda isnt to control your sex life, its for people to be responsible for their sexuallity.
This isn't hard reasoning, but you really shouldn't claim you are making others more responsible by taking away their choice.
Any decent parent knows that in order to raise children into responsible adults, you teach them how to make good choices instead of removing the choice all together.
Beanzrus71,
It is great that you kept your pants on or used birth control. But you do realize that birth control does not always work. I know several woman who became pregnant while using different methods. But where is this casual regard to abortion coming from. Is every abortion medically necessary? No. But what about the one's where they are. Will there need to be a tribunal of doctors who all agree? What about rape and incest. Will a woman have to prove she was raped before she is allowed to end a pregnancy. Even if you believe there are moral issues to abortions you should recognize that there are legitimate times they are needed. Just because a minority of woman abuse the procedure does not mean it should be banned. I think in most cases women end up making the best decision.
I'm sorry, you must not have understood my point which was that the number of abortions happening today is not proportional to the number of incest, rape or other extreme conditions.
I believe you have it turned around, the majority of abortions are performed for women. Less than 5-6% of abortions are performed on women who are victims of rape, incest or for health reasons. 90% of 1.3 million (average number per year in USA) equals about 1.17 million abortions performed for "convienence" or "insecurity" reasons.
Uh oh, im quoting conservative backed websites, guess ill expect you guys to disreguard them but providing anyways.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/whyabort.htm
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
I fully understood your point. I do not doubt your numbers. My point is why should the women who have these reasons have anything get in their way of their choice. I fully support any woman's right to choose if she remains pregnant. Why should the women in the other categories need additional proof and go through additional heartache to make conservatives feel better. This is one place I feel conservatives are not being consistent on this issue. If you feel abortion is murder then it should not matter what is going on with the woman. The innocent life should all that is important. But most of you do not say that.
I respect your opinion. I just wish you and your fellow liberals really reflected the term "pro choice" in your political leanings. Instead, I'm not completely sure about you, but most liberals really aren't "pro choice" on most issues, but mostly just the abortion issue. I just think you guys should come up with a different political term to describe your position.
Pro-choice seems to describe the liberal position on abortion quite well. Because the term has not been used to describe any other liberal political position (at least not to my knowledge), does not make it any less applicable to abortion.
If you're suggesting that because someone is pro-choice on one issue, then they must be pro-choice on all issues, that's nonsense. That's a completely lazy, brain-dead approach that fails to consider the specifics of each issue.
There is never a shortage of people willing to give up OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS!
If men got pregnan there would be abortion clinics on half the streetcorners in America and they would be government subsidized. You can call a fetus a baby all you want it wont make it one. But this thread isnt about abortion its about Thompson changing his position on abortion and yet still having Cameron call him consistant
You're absolutely wrong about that. If men had the ability to get pregnant the same people who are pro life now would still be pro life. It's not a gender issue. It's a human rights issue. But I do agree with you and Media Matters on the actual post. Media Matters was right to point out that Thompson has changed his position on abortion just like about every other Republican front runner.
Keep telling yourself that. Neither of us can prove this as it is strictly a matter of opinion but MINE is that many pro life men would suddenly become pro choice if it were THEIR choice. I dont doubt you would still feel the same but I think it niave to believe many men wouldnt change overnight if THEY had to have the babies
"It's not a gender issue. It's a human rights issue."
It’s the perceived fetuses’ right versus a woman’s right to carry a pregnancy to term or to end the pregnancy but one senator has come up with a solution.
Good one, Loonz. The Onion must be getting a better budget.
Rino,
Look I don't think you are fully grasping the actual issue at hand regarding abortion. I don't believe an embryo is life. I believe I could have a doctor remove unfertilized eggs from me and fertilize them with sperm and they are nothing. GET IT they are nothing I don't believe what you believe and for you to try to control what I do with my eggs based on silly superstitsions is you OPINION nothing more. I don't share your view that's the end of the argument.
Anything else is government interference.
Why must every conservative say that a fetus or embryo is a child. It is not. It has the potential to be a child but until it has the ability to live on it's own it is not. You say that during the first trimester it abortion is ok but afterwards it is not. What is the big change that happens to the fetus to make it a child at week 13? I'll tell you. NOTHING. It is a made up time by conservatives to appeal to more people.
Week Thirteen
- Your infant is about 2.91 inches (7.4cm) and weighs around 0.81 ounce (23gm) - This is about the same weight as 4 quarters.
- If you could peek in again you may spot your baby as he begins to practice inhaling and exhaling movements
- Eyes and ears continue to move and develop
- Baby's neck is getting longer, and the chin no longer is resting on his chest
- Her hands are becoming more functional - Your baby may find it comforting to start playing with her fist.
- At this point all nourishment is received from the placenta
- On your next doctor visit you should be able to hear heartbeat with a Doppler by now - (Don't worry though if you can't, the heartbeat can be confirmed through U/S). Your baby's heartbeat is much rapider than your own and may remind you of the race towards birth that he is running!
all this and more at [link to www.pregnancy.org] />Beanz, you might want to re-read that anti-abortion pamphlet, and see if you can figure out where voluntary motives are ascribed to actions that could be compared to that of a plant.
Beans,
Sorry most of the thing mentioned in your little blurb happen around week 8. [link to en.wikipedia.org] This is when the embryo becomes a fetus. Why don't you show a link to your information from pregnancy.org. This is a website for expecting parents. Why don't you show what they say for week 11 or 12. I'm sure they are similar. The fact of the matter is at week 13 the fetus is still not viable. Therefore, it is still potential life not life.
Where is the Abortion Hall of Fame? In the same magical place that these stories come from?
The Abortion Hall of Fame?
I'm pretty sure that its somewhere in central Kansas,
Yeah, if you want to know where it's at just ask George Tiller.
"Nine abortions...what a medical miracle...nine times distraught with a ruined life...and nine times returned to life...talk about convenience"
Here's a side to the argument I almost NEVER see, not from anti-abortionists (if you support war and/or the death penalty you are NOT "pro-life") or the pro-choicers: do you REALLY WANT a women who will have 9 abortions to BE a "mother"?
I am pro-choice and I think it would be just peachy keen if there were no need for abortions ever...but it ain't gonna happen in MY lifetime, if ever.
In the meantime, see if you can convince me that being aborted is worse than the life led by a child I read about in Reader's Digest who was 15 years old and had had numerous bones broken by his parents beating him. Whose parents rented him out as a sex object to their friends, and who was dying of AIDS as a result.
doggone-ga, you know some intrusive liberal child protection services probably uncovered that situation. Payed for by hard working Republicans' tax dollars!
So what, Wessey?
Not a single word in your post proves the decisions women make are made lightly.
Wesley,
I don't care what your views regarding abortion are, I only care about mine, being a woman and all. I don't want children: Period. I have an IUD which is an abortive and 100% effective and that's what you religious freaks fail to realize: abortion is the only truely effective method of birth control. I wish everyone could experience the freedom of the IUD.
I don't care about embryos and nothing you say will make me agree with your mythological morality.
Screw you. I love sex!!!! By the way my husband says to F*** off as well. Spend your sad life in sexual denial if you want but leave me out of it. Isn't that the point of being free? Do what you want but leave me the hell alone!
"Screw you. I love sex!!!! By the way my husband says to F*** off as well"
Why haven't you been banned yet?
How about because you are Anti-sex and I am Pro-sex. I love it and I am not gonna stop having it because you are repressed (small penis).
I got not problem with discarding a bunch of cells you choose to call an embryo. That's it, the whole argument: it's a difference of opinion and as long as you don't come into my bedroom then we can live in peace.
Who said anything about coming into your bedroom? I wouldn't come into your bedroom for anything. You can keep your sex life to yourself.
Claypot, you may have hit on something I've missed. While I believe RinoHunters screen name is based on the acronym for "Republicans in Name ONly", isn't there a history of Rhinos being killed for their horns supposed aphrodisiac powers?
I'd really been convinced that fear was the biggest motivator to become a Republican, but I think we're seeing a cautionary tale here about the effects of sexual inadequacy due to repression.
Maybe the greatest act conscientious Americans can commit is to get out there and do some Republicans.Might calm them down enough to realize what they're doing.
Wesley,
You male dominating freak: I DON'T BELIEVE embryos are life PERIOD! It's a difference of opinion is what this whole argument comes down to: but the major difference is I am NOT trying dominate your life with my opinion. You don't wanna have sex except for procreation (pity the spouse) then don't! I will have sex with whomever I please whenever the fancy takes me. I have an IUD an abortive I expel embryos left and right and don't care! Get it? It's your mythological opinion: NOT MINE! End of discussion. Don't believe in abortion then don't friggin get one.
Oh, kind of like Hillary with voting for Iraq resolution?
Yikes mmfa...you never got the bat off your shoulder on this called third strike.
Name ONE pro-abortion group that will endorse Thompson.
Not the point... and not an excuse for you to get up on your soap box. Ladies and gentlement - welcome to Wesley's favorite pet topic.
Wes, You're right of course. They usually only endorse liberals. But this goes more to Cameron's misstep, in my opinion.....or lazy reporting, whatever, he should have qualified his statement.
Name ONE pro-abortion group, period.
NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood.........perhaps not PRO-abortion, so to speak - but how about "SHHHH-adoption"?
Why does Planned Parenthood provide contraceptions and educational materials if they're pro-abortion.Sort of goes against logic.
You're right. They're pro-casual sex, not simply pro abortion. They basically promote the liberal view, "If it feels good, do it."
"If it feels good do it" ~ Rhino
All I can say in response to all of your comments is I am glad I am NOT your spouse. I am a female and I love sex, because...IT FEELS GOOD! I have been married 3 years and me and my husband "get it on" every chance we get and we don't have children and we don't want any. I have an IUD which is 100% effective because it's an abortive, it prevents the fertilized embryo from attaching itself to my uterus.
You life sounds sad. That you deny yourself sexual pleasure because of some mythological morality. Well I don't share that view and for you to want to force your morality on me is wrong. I don't care about embryos they are not real IMO and in MY LIFE my opinion is the only one that counts.
I also want to point out the obvious: all these rich "Pro-Life" politicians would just send there daughters/mistresses to Europe for abortions if it was made illegal here. Abortion laws only affect the poor and you are crazy if you think otherwise.
I can't wait until the day stem cell research yeilds huge medical cures because that is the day all of you embryo huggers will shut up!
"I have been married 3 years and me and my husband "get it on" every chance we get"
I don't have any problem with that. Sex is supposed to be something that was meant for marriage. I've been saying that all along. I'm not condemning you for having sex with your spouse. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But the drug thing is pretty bad though. Seriously, you should try to quit for your own good.
Who are you to tell me what's for my own good? Oh, I'm sorry are you my Daddy?
No. I'm just trying to give you some helpful advice so that you don't fry all your brain cells.
Thanks for making my point, RH.
Earlier you denied that so-called pro-lifers wish to control our sex lives. In your last two posts, however you denounced "casual sex" & stated that "Sex is something that was meant for marriage". It's clear from your posts that you view pregnancy as a penalty to be imposed upon those people who choose to have sex that is unsanctioned by the state. Being forced to carry all such pregnancies to term is a whip by which other people... particularly women... can be intimidated away from giving in to the natural forces of biology, desire, & passion.
Parenthood should not be a punishment for violating the sexual taboos of traditional societies. This is a freedom squashing tactic by which conservatives hope to reimpose the power of the state to control the individual choices of its people. This is really all about subjugating the individual to the will of the society, rather than allowing people to make their own decisions about how they will conduct their personal lives.
You completely distorted what I said. I never said that pre marital sex or extra marital sex should be illegal. I personally disagree with both, but I don't want the government to make laws against it. What you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is your own business. I'm a conservative libertarian who believes that the government should give it's citizens freedom, unless that freedom interferes with the freedom of another human being. That's why I oppose abortion.
Once again. A fetus is not a human being.
A person is considered officially dead when their heart stops beating. A "fetus's" heart starts beating about three weeks after conception. Shouldn't it at least be considered a human being by then? It would make sense since a person is officially dead when their heart stops beating.
Actually, a person is legaly considered dead when their brain wave activity ceases. Hearts can often be restarted, but a brain can never be restored once all electrical activity has stopped. It is our minds & our ability to think that defines us as human.
Shouldn't a fetus have the power to THINK before being considered a human being?
Mentally retarted people can't THINK. Are they not real people? Also, you probably can't think coherent thoughts until you're about two or three years old. Should one year olds be allowed to be murdered as well?
"Mentally retarted(sic) people can't THINK. ... you probably can't think coherent thoughts until you're about two or three years old"
I am learning so much here.
Mental retardation is does not mean a person can not think. To say that shows your extreme ignorance. [link to www.cdc.gov] you are mentally retarded your IQ is low. But that does not mean they can not think. Depending on the level of retardation will determine the level of assistance a person will need. As far as a child goes they too can think. However, a fetus can not think nor can it live on it's own outside of the womb.
In order for that person to be considered dead after their heart stops beating, they have to have been born alive and viable first.
That makes them a person.
A fetus is not a person until that fetus is born alive and viable. A 10 week old fetus with a heartbeat does not become a person if it is expelled from the womb. That's a miscarriage of a fetus.
Rino,
They are not pro-casual sex. They are pro-responsible sex. Seeing as how the VAST majority of American's have always had pre-marital sex. [link to www.publichealthreports.org] Maybe you are part of the 5% to 10%(depending on age) of people who never had pre-marital sex. But if you were I think it would be important for you to do so responsibly. That is what planned parenthood stands for. In fact if you look at their name it is pretty simple. They would like pregnancy to be "Planned". Therefore, you need to educate people how to avoid pregnancy (birth control) when possible or end pregnancy (abortion) or give up your pregnancy (adoption). They are a resource to help young people to make informed decisions.
Maybe so, but they still advocate abortion on demand with absolutely no restrictions. Their view is shared by only about 15-20% of Americans. They're a very extreme organization which wants abortion to remain legal up until the moment of birth.
Rino,
Where do you get your stats. [link to abcnews.go.com] link from abc news shows you are wrong. A majority 57 to 43 oppose abortion for simply birth control but if you ask people if abortion should be legal in all or most cases the the answer is 58 to 42 yes. This is a far cry to your 15 to 20 percent. If you have a link to independent stats please show them.
Planned Parenthood
No Tommy. but thanks for reminding me of the other 2. They're all pro-abortion.
Their supporters don't like that term, it's not friendly and comforting like pro-choice.
Unless the left can extend their "pro-choice" slogan to other issues such as the privatization of Social Security and school vouchers, they should really discontinue using it.
Touche...once again your common sense trumps liberal rhetoric.
you still haven't explained what your statement about who will endorse thompson has to do with his flip flop on this issue.
Or the funding of a war we don't agree with.
Sorry, your analogy (use of tax dollars vs. what we do with our own bodies) is bogus.
You're exactly right Tommy. Liberals are "pro choice" on abortion but anti choice on pretty much everything else. As you said, they oppose choice when it comes to school vouchers and social security accounts. They also oppose choice when it comes to what kinds of guns you can buy, how you can spend your own money, if a business owner wants to allow smoking in his own restaurant or not, or even if a parent wants to spank their children or not. I could go on and on about the liberals anti-freedom agenda. The fact that they are only pro choice on abortion but on very little else proves that they aren't pro choice after all, but pro abortion. Or maybe more specifically pro-casual sex.
Just for the record there are some libertarians like Neil Boortz who support abortion rights who are actually pro choice. He and other libertarians support choice in every aspect of one's life and not just abortion. He's truly pro choice and pro freedom.
While I'll admit to being pro-casual sex ( I find the cummerbund very distracting among other problems with formal sex), most of the other liberal stereotypes you produced are just that.
I'm certain you could find somebody who doesn't think you should beat your kids or use a high powered assault rifle to hunt varmints, but you'd probably be surprised at how many people you consider liberal have opinions up and down and across the spectrum on most of the issues you cited.
One thing you might notice regarding "choice" and the different areas it applies to with respect to different political ideologies is the matter of private choices, and choices that affect others, or society as a whole.
I understand abortion is the topic here, and you consider a fetus a human. That's fine, I respect your opinion, and would hope you are never forced to have an abortion.I equally respect those who don't confer equal rights on a two celled organism, and would hope they are never forced to give birth to a baby against their will.
Rino,
You are right to a point. But you fail to see the difference in what liberals are pro-choice about. We tend to be pro-choice about issues that affect the individual. A woman who is pregnant or two people of same sex who would like to marry. However, once your "choice" interferes with other people the choice goes away. Smoking in public, removing public funds from public schools and a person being able to buy a tank. These are issues that are larger than the person making the "choice" and therefore we (for the most part) are against them.
Tommy,
School Vouchers, Social Security???? How can you even compare that to the government wanting to come into my life and tell me "if I don't wanna get pregnant then close my legs?"
There is no bar in the entire world I couldn't go to tonight and have A MAN take me home for some "yummy yummy". Take your opinions and cram them I don't need your judgements: and that's all they are. I like sex and I will have it anywhere at any time and I would eat embryos for lunch! Screw you, screw everything about you: religious freak! There's a little thing called freedom and I live my life according to what I SAY, NOT YOU: don't want an abortion THEN DON"T HAVE ONE otherwise shut up!
Wow, what man wouldn't a piece of that "yummy, yummy" after that way you put it?
And please, do not misunderstand - you are more than free to have as much rampant, anonymous sex as you please, go for it.....I have no interest either way. As long as you support the ones you bring into this world and don't expect strangers to pay for it, they be my guest - dole out your yummy to whomever wants it.
Unless the left can extend their "pro-choice" slogan to other issues such as the privatization of Social Security and school vouchers, they should really discontinue using it... tommy
Tommy, thanks as always for your unsolicited advice about what our side should do.
And unless the right can extend their "pro-life" slogan to include opposition to the death penalty, they should really discontinue using it.
Fair enough?
Nor is it even remotely as accurate as pro-choice.
Their supporters don't like that term(pro-abortion), it's not friendly and comforting like pro-choice.- ehull
It's not accurate or true either, but don't let that stop you.
No Ehull,
We don't like that term because it is disingenuous. There are very few people who are pro-abortion. Most of us don't run down the street and tell every pregnant woman we see that they should have an abortion because it is better. Maybe a better term for the pro-lifers is anti-choice. I believe it is closer to the truth than calling us pro-abortion.
Ehull, Plan Parenthood offer an array of health CHOICES for women. They office birth control as well as abortions for those women who CHOOSE to have them. They offer advise on Stds and general health care for women.
My explanation for my pro choice is simple, I have a CHOICE as to my own personal health.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue.
- “I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate.” - Fred Thompson
That makes him consistently pro-life...regardless of the nitpicking by mmfa.
If a reporter had said that Hank Aaron was consistently a home run hitter...it would not be necessary for him to also report that he only hit 13 home runs in his first season in 1954.
His consistent pro-life voting record debunks any attempt at trying to pin on him the tag of flip-flop.
So when he said (or wrote) that he believed "[a]bortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy" he was lying? Okay.
Guess it's "nitpicking" to quote Thompson's own words.
Dave, remember Republicans don't flip flop, they "change their minds"
Hey, I'm good with "lying." Why sugar coat it?
Oh! You know what? Maybe he didn't lie... back then. Maybe he's lying AND pandering now? Could it be?
Suit yourself...his record speaks for itself...solidly and consistently pro-life...as Cameron correctly said....you're backing a losing proposition...along with mmfa...if you're trying to paint Thompson as a flip-flopper on abortion.
No, they're painting him as a liar. Which he apparently is.
---"his record speaks for itself"---
And part of Thompson's record is that he said he supports Roe v. Wade, and first-trimester abortion. That speaks for itself.
Wesley, I would say that Thompson has been pretty solidly anti-abortion lately, but a look at his record goes against a real pro-life argument. See especially under Crime (death penalty), Gun Control, and Homeland Security.
I won't count his favoring violent videos for kids, as I'm more anti-censorship than that.
Absolutely right Wesley! Also, our very own MediaMatters truncated the quote they took from FOX News Interview with Chris Wallace to make it appear Fred was saying something entirely different from his complete answer here;
WALLACE: "Do you want to overturn Roe vs. Wade?"
THOMPSON: "I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges. I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It's contrary to what it's been the past 200 years. We have a process in this country to do that. Judges shouldn't be doing that. That's what happened in that case. I think it was wrong."
I hope everyone can now clearly see that Fred, as a JD since 1967, fully understands the judges overreached as he also holds all three branches to the exact same high standard as he has demonstrated while a Senator sponsoring or co-sponsoring 48 pieces of legislation, most of it aimed at increasing our national security against terrorism, providing tax relief to citizens and small businesses, and cutting government red tape during his eight years and twice elected term.
As a side note, I never wish to be hoodwinked by either side and I would be much more comfortable with MediaMatters if they would watch ALL sides for all of us, the American citizens.
Why don't you tell that to:
www.newsbusters.org
www.mrc.org
Tell WHAT to DTRAIN??
AND don't feign you gave me proof of what you say by providing the general link to a website that size....Where's the beef son?
LOL!! DTRAIN
OK, I understand that what you're trying to say is that because newsbusters exists so then should MediaMatters...Let me suggest this, if both are reporting the closest thing to truth as they can find than they are helping us. If they are not doing the best they can they are hurting themselves AND us. Additionally, the main stream media is overwhelmingly liberally slanted and/or unreported news.
So, let me offer this one more time. If we watch all sides and call all sources when they mislead, do not report or outright lie...Call them on it and speak the truth.
Lets do whats right merely because it's the right thing to do and call down ANYONE who does otherwise. ( The tricky part is we better do our homework to be right everytime. No much room for mistakes but, we can do that now with the internet. )
As a side note, I never wish to be hoodwinked by either side and I would be much more comfortable with MediaMatters if they would watch ALL sides for all of us, the American citizens.
I don't think you understood at all. I believe his point was that there are all sorts of sites out there. MMFA doesn't have to do anything. It does what it chooses. There are other organizations that try to walk the unbiased middle road. (I think On The Media on NPR does this, but I haven't listened in a long while and forget.) I'm sure there are others.
It's not that the other organizations validate MMFA's right to exist. It's that they more than cover the other side's agenda. MMFA is under no obligation to air both sides.
Backpedaling just a bit, aren't you?
Previously, you singled-out the "liberal" Media Matters, saying they should cover all sides, not just the "liberal" side.
When shown there is "newsbusters"-- a conservative version of Media Matters -- suddenly now you backtrack and say, oh well, as long as they're reporting the truth. And then as proof of where you're coming from, you throw-in the baseless claim that the media is "overwhelmingly liberal".
I would bet that you did not send and do not intend to send a similar note to the right-wing newsbusters, admonishing them as you did Media Matters for not covering bias on all sides.
What you want, in your "overwhelmingly liberal media" fantasy world, is for Media Matters to cover ALL bias, and for places like newsbusters to cover just the "liberal" bias. Otherwise, you'd just as soon Media Matters didn't exist at all.
Cameron said Thompson was "consistently pro-life".
But, in 1994, Thompson said he "support[ed] the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion."
That is not, contrary to Cameron's assertion, a consistent position, and that is the point of this Media Matters item.
Nothing like a little PROOF Dave, you know, like a link?
- “I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate.” - Fred Thompson
Wing...that quote is the meat of the coconut...not what the liberals are attaching to a 1993 statement. You don't have to do their work for them...his voting record is on full display to the public.
Not one single pro-abortion group...not one...can refute his voting record...for 14 years...as a pro-lifer.
But that won't stop a lot of the inane yammering.
But that won't stop a lot of the inane yammering.
Seems nothing will. All those liberally biased facts sure don't.
The quote is from the Media Matters item at the top of this page. Didn't you bother reading it?:
-----------In fact, on July 29, 1993, the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported that Thompson, then running for a Tennessee U.S. Senate seat, said during an interview that he "supports the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion." In an October 21, 1994, article, The Washington Post similarly reported that "both" Thompson and his Democratic opponent in the 1994 Senate race, then-Rep. Jim Cooper, "believe in legal abortion."----------
Now I'm sure and I'm positive, based on my experience with right-wingers, that you will either say that a) MM fabricated the quote, b) took it out of context, or c) that even though the quote is accurate it still somehow doesn't matter.
Since facts never get in the right-wingers' way, I saved you the trouble of typing a reply.
If you can show where he never spoke those words, do so. Otherwise, you are going to have a hard time convincing me (though not yourself, naturally) that he is not "consistently pro-life" as Cameron falsely stated.
Correction to my post:
The sentence "convincing me he is not" should of course be "convincing me he IS".
Dave,
Washington Post, October 21, 1994
Author: William F. Powers
Title: The Politicians Pickup Lines; Fred Thompson Driving Home a Campaign of Illusion and Disillusion
Thanks, Pearlene.
Wesley &/or Tommy, how is moving the pro choice slogan into school vouchers and social security debates, comon sense. There are some conguencies I suppose. Expand your case.
There are some things you could probably call pro-life that could be very accurate, but not what they would like to be called either.
When did changing ones mind with new information or experience become flip flopping. Does it only apply if done to better stroke your voter base. Or is a wider deffinition applicable.
I have always asked myself: What would a Republican man do (racist and misogynist as most of them are) in the hypothetical case that his young daughter were raped by a black man? My guess? He'd go get her an abortion immediately!
WOW...that's the ace of spades in the race bigot's deck of cards.
You have just offended every BLACK republican father...along with all republican fathers.
That is top shelf for bigotry...you can stay on your side of the fence with that stupidity.
You have just offended every BLACK republican father.- wesley
You haven't talked to all three of them, have you?
If they are voting "Republican" they are beyond offending: it is difficult to name a single "Republican" of national stature who is not now skating at the verge of endorsing the Bungle in the White House, and his catastrof**k administration - after all, that is how to align oneself with the infamous "base" which may once again get them close enough for Diebold/ES&S to steal another election.
Looking skeptically at the politicization of Justice, Immigration, rampant violations of the Hatch Act throughout every Cabinet office, the looming military "vote caging" disclosures about Griffin's role and reward, the destruction of Habeus Corpus, posse comitatus, FISA, personal freedom from unwarranted surveillance; the looting and impoverishment of our Treasury and our currency; and the number of Republican felons already processed by even that reluctant politicized DOJ - if I had ever voted for a Republican, I would issue a full, formal apology.* And we haven't even got to the indicted, or those such as Foley, who may never face (earthly) justice.
*I did, and I am sorry: in the folly of youthful arrogance, I voted for Nixon twice, for Goldwater; I even selected Romney as Governor; Finally, I could no longer abide the lying, so I never voted for Ray-Gun, nor either Bush.
Conley, you've demonstrated your wisdom here enough,maybe you can help me with this.I'm constantly trying to visualize the "base" that is still buying Bushco's scam. I see the 30% or 28%, and do the math as to what that means in raw numbers in a country the size of ours.
I hear the am radio talkers and Foxnooz, and figure people will do anything for money, although some of them may be sincere. But when I see insane Republicans like Ann Coulter writing trash like this, meaning she's even seeing the failure and throwing Bush under the bus, I have to ask, who is still nutty enough to be in the "approve" category?
Have you ever seen the classic B horror film (recently remade) [link to www.dvdtimes.co.uk] target="_blank">The Hills Have Eyes? It features a family of mutants, survivors of nuclear tesing done in those pre-fab towns in the desert.I look at a map of the U.S., at that big mass of red states, and wonder;
How many nukes did we set off out there, and who knew it would provide the GOP with their base?
"Have you ever seen the classic B horror film The Hills Have Eyes ? "is what should have happened.
Interestingly enough, the residents of New Mexico do seem quite prone to cancers.
I played the old and the new "Hills Have Eyes" as background to one or another of my Media Matters excursions, in fact; can't say I watched, although I may have glanced from time to (loud noise) time, since that is not a favorite genre for me.
As to who that base is, I once thought they were mostly near-illiterate, seeking to save their souls from eternal Hell-Fire by imposing their preachers' version of morality by force upon the rest of us. Since I have known quite a few of those, and am aghast that they often still see Zionist plots, Jewish conspiracies, and Reds under every bed, I have attempted to show facts, state conclusions from those facts, and, in effect, reason with them. Sometimes I get them grudgingly right up to the edge of acknowledging that Mike Rogers lies to them - but at the last instant, they duck back under the cover of idiot preacher's assurance that they are bound for Hell-Fire (song, Fire! Your choice, either The Who, or Crazy World of Arthur Brown) if they don't vote for Mike and all the rest of the Repugnants. And of course they wouldn't vote for anyone who would lie to them, so, those cannot really be lies, issue closed.
Then I noticed other elements also staunchly backing Mike and Bungle: those who are a little better educated - exposed to more than AM radio for information and opinion - who feel that if they are to "protect the kids" in our little dope-den corner of ruralia, and avoid exposing them to unsettling influences such as sex education, it will be necessary to instill "abstinence-only"; and while we are at it, we really should consider some counter to that darned science teacher insisting that evolution is science. (Fortunately, there has been little headway on that latter front, since genetics is essential to crops and livestock; but most of the benefit of "abstinence only" has been a surge in shotgun weddings right after Prom.) Since those are people who could know better, I am having difficulty coming up with an approach to them. If, as I usually ass-u-me, their central problem is simply that they feel they have no other control of their own kids, than to sic the School System on the task of (mis) informing those kids about sexual behaviours and dangers. They are unwilling, I suppose, to admit that those kids might (courtesy of dope dealers and users in the neighborhood) already know enough to ask why the folks had a kid only six months after their own wedding. So, none of them talk to each other, and the School winds up in the role of surrogate for the parents - but with strictures that make the task impossible. Then, Mike comes by, and tells the parents that it is all the School's fault that the kids are dopers, and the girls are pregnant, and the only solution is to vote for another round of Repugnant morality (or admit that their own fears are the root cause, which is never going to happen). With reinforcement from occasional exposure to Corporate Media lies, these folks are steadfast Bungleoids, in my area constituting a majority - and unassailable because they can never admit fear (it would be bad for "the kids") and must consequently accept those lies as truth.
That's it for this report from the hinterlands - home of the "Michigan HillBilly" component of Bungle's "base".
Reply Part II:
In re Ann: I am awestruck! This is the first piece of hers that I felt could have been authored by a creature sharing at least half the DNA of Homo. Perhaps it has been my misfortune to have been linked into her work by Buzzflash, Think Progress, MMFA, and others intent upon showing her at her outrageous worst. Now I must totally rethink my resistance to sharing a phylum with her.
Thanks for the reply, Conley. Of course my point about AC was a little tongue in cheek, as she's turned on Bush for not being quite reactionary enough.
When looking at GWB's dismal approval ratings, I feel it's important to consider how many of our fellow Americans fall into this "too weak even for the GOP" group.
HBL: I, too, was a touch tongue-in-cheek about rethinking my resistance to sharing a phylum with her: I suppose I was sharing your amusement at the ease with which she has discarded Bungle, as no longer electorally effective in her vision of a society in which there will be an ever-expanding market for her attacks on everyone who isn't Ann (or whatever name she is using now that the FBI has placed her with Witness Protection for her testimony against the Florida Elections Supervisor who was attempting to get her prosecuted).
For the record, I remain adamantly opposed to the assignment of "gangleskank" to the same phylum as Homo Sapiens: there just has not been sufficient analysis of how such a creature could conceivably come to exist, to allow proper assignment at this time. My objections have been filed, and are even now being subjected to peer review, prior to a formal determination on whether to bring this to the attention of the full committee.
I wasn't even aware of an official process for evicting somebody from our entire species.I have emailed Bill O'Reilly in the past, and notified him that he is prohibited from being Irish, but I think that was just ceremonial.
What should be noted though is that even though he ran a pro-abortion campaign, Thompson voted consistently pro-life during his Senate tenure.
Why a Republican would run on that platform in a Southern State is a mystery to me, though. Then again, George W. Bush was pro-abortion when he ran for Congress way back when, so go figure.
Why do you try to come on here and be reasonable, and then say a stupid thing like "pro-abortion"?
Other than some totalitarian governments, I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. We're pro-choice. We're for giving a woman the choice to continue a pregnancy or abort that pregnancy. She gets the choice, not the fetus. That's what liberty and freedom are all about. The fetus has a right to exist all the way up until the time that right impedes a woman's right to control her own body. When that fetus impedes her right to control her own body, she gets to make the choice to end the imposition of that fetus on her body!
You can shout "fire" many places, but when you shout "fire" in a place where panic and injury may ensue, you lose your right to shout "fire".
It's not pro-abortion. It's pro-choice.
The biggest problem about the abortion issue, besides the fact that the mainstream media just LOVES to be shills for the Right-Wing on this issue any time they can, is the fact it's NEVER discussed rationally. There's NEVER a mention of the FACT that bible-toting, Christo-Fascist Fundamentalist Protestant A-Holes, along with their Neo-Fascist Catholic brethren can't even BEGIN to come up with a SOUND biblical basis for their beliefs. They IGNORE completely the FACT that there are literally DOZENS of pieces of scripture that support the concept that life BEGINS AT BIRTH, and that there is NO SOUL WHATSOEVER until the BIRTHED baby takes its first breath.
To me, this is beyond the pale. That so many of these SO-CALLED Christians can simply ignore this as if it means nothing, and BASELESSLY spout this garbage about the "Sanctity of Life".
I just WISH that one of these lowlife ignorant scumbags would have the guts to ever debate ME on the subject in an open forum. For one, they wouldn't be able to shout me down, as I have a BOOMING voice that carries well. Two, they wouldn't DARE try to cow me by threatening physical harm, as they'd just end up in a hospital themselves. And three, they wouldn't be able to spout their nonsense unchecked, as I'd come prepared, COMPLETELY PREPARED, to shred EVERY ONE OF THEIR NONSENSICAL, IDIOTIC, IGNORANT ATTEMPTS AT SKEWING THE ISSUE...LOL
Now, give me a NON-RELIGIOUS proponent of banning abortion, and I could tear his arguments to shreds even quicker. Regardless, it just seems a shame that the issue is NEVER discussed rationally, and is instead allowed to be painted in the light that the Right-Wing Neo-Nazi scum WANT it to be painted in. Until someone with enough clout and enough REAL power and pull forces this issue into the public forum and REALLY discusses it, we're going to be fed the same tired idiocy, the MSM will ignore the OBVIOUS political expediency behind Repuglikkkunts becoming "ULTRA PRO-LIFE" whenever there's a national election at stake, and the same TREASONOUS attempts to load our courts, including the Supremes, with enough mindless Neo-Fascist scum as they can to put us back into the dark ages on this issue.
Wake up, America.
All the pro-lifers are guilty of attempted rape. To force their way into the wombs of strangers, to impregnate them without consent, to force them to breed for the war god Jehovah. Rapists, one and all.
It's been said earlier in this thread but I will say it again: if men gave birth it would be a sacrement and readily available. This I say as a woman when men start coming equipped with a uterus then you can tell a woman what she can do with her body and until you do come equipped with a uterus don't tell me what to do with mine. For men to tell women what to do with their bodies would be like women telling men hey get a vasectomy so I don't have to worry about getting pregnant and then make the very hard choice to have an abortion.
People on the "pro life" side seem to think that making that choice is just something women do on the spur of the moment. Trust me it's not done that easily as it affects both parties involved.
Speaking of Fox News. Did you hear the latest? It seems that Fox News reporter Adam Housley has called liberal New York City Councilman Charles Baron a "son of a bitch." You can read about it on this blog:
[link to www.eyesonfox.org] haven't seen this picked up by MediaMatters which I find surprising since you folks usually are on top of these things.
Well, considering Baron was spewing propaganda for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, I'd say being called an SOB is the least of his concerns.
MMFA was smart not to be seen as defending a Communist sympathiser.
President Chavez got himself elected - more than we can truthfully say about Bungle. Propaganda, you say? At least his works in Venezuela, while even with the Corporate Media issuing his press releases as "investigative reporting", Bungle isn't doing all that well here in the Good Ole US of A.
It still nags at me: if being called an SOB is the least of Baron's concerns, what, O Mighty Wizard, is the list ahead of that?
Heck, ever'body knows "consistent" is dif'rent for Repugnants.