quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If McCain does not promise that he will use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees, how can he be better than the other ?

How can he be worse in this regard?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If McCain does not promise that he will use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees, how can he be better than the other ?

How can he be worse in this regard?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

Liz's analysis is full of flaws.

McCain "...scores a measly 66% from the NRLC - a measure that is highly revered on this site."
The whole story: McCain has been on the campaign trail and has missed four of the seven votes the NRLC has kept scores on. This tiny sample size is not representative of McCain's voting pattern on abortion.
Of the three votes he cast, two were with the NRLC and one about embryonic stem cell research was against.
When was the last time you saw someone even mention the NRLC, let alone their "higly revered" scoring system?

"There are Democrats in the House and Senate that score higher than this!"
The real story: There is ONE Democrat in the Senate that scored higher than McCain. I'm sure there is a proportionally paltry few in the House.

"...and people on these forums think that you cannot touch any Republicans record on the issue of abortion because they are all flawless."
Nobody has written that.

By the way, Obama scored zero. Clinton scored zero. About thirty Democrats in the Senate scored zero. Put it this way, thirty Democratic Senators added together made two fewer pro-life votes than John McCain did when he was hardly in Washington at all.

http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard.xc?chamber=S&state=US&session=110&x=12&y=11

No - ljmac, you have generalized ALL democrats as 'murdering, blood-thirsty' heathens - you have done so numerous times on these forums - I'd be happy to pull quotes for you. And when asked to qualify your answer - which site do you use? Why, none other than the nrlc.org. Then, on this note, you conveniently leave out the fact that McCain scores lower on the nrlc.org than some democrats. You also then, neglect to mention that, surprisingly (I was definitely surprised) there are quite a few Republicans that score lower than the democrats that I am about to mention.

And no - you are so biased that you do not want to see - that is the problem here.

Here are the nrlc.org scores of democrats that score as good or better than McCain:

House Reps:...

Senators:...

And on this note, ljmac - I noticed a surprisingly number of OTHER Republicans that score LOWER than even these 'evil' democrats! - would you like me to post their scores? And if you say that's not true - you are in denial and I will post them. And if you don't address this note - I will assume that you know this and that it is fair to say that the Republican, then are not the flawless princes on the subject of anti-abortion that you make them out to be.

And I also see that you do not care to address the fact that overturning RVW thru judicial appointments has NOT worked for DECADES. Republican presidents have appointed the majority of SC justices in the last 3 decades - and this has NOT overturned RVW.

And I also see that you fail to address the fact that Republicans did NOTHING at the Congressional level from 2000-2006 when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government - to return jurisdictin to the states on the matter of sanctity of life. They could have done what Ron Paul is trying to do right now with HR 2597. And where are the Republicans on this? And if you dismiss what Ron Paul is trying to do - then you must address the fact that overturning RVW through the judicial arm is plainly NOT working. And dismissing what Ron Paul is doing is simply making excuses for Republicans inactivity when it comes to returning federal jurisdiction to the states. Anyone who is not so biased they can't see or refuse to see; can plainly see this.

By the way - I know the scores of Clinton and Obama - I was pointing out that there are democrats that score better than McCain on being anti-abortion. And surprising to even me - there are even MORE Republicans that score lower than the aforementioned democrats!!! Unreal - and how convenient that you have never pointed this out - how very interesting.

And I also see that you did not address another VERY important point - that McCain has STILL NOT promised that he will use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justices appointees. If he does not promise this, with his 66% rating from the nrlc.org, why all the fuss over him?

Peace and God bless,

Liz,
Out of over perhaps 225 Democrats in the House you come up with about a dozen that score higher than McCain and offer that as proof of Democrats being pro-life? That's incredibly weak analysis. And let's not forget, that they voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker, and she'll surely kill any pro-life legislation as surely as liberals will kill the unborn.

I think you make things up as you go along. I never, "have generalized ALL democrats as 'murdering, blood-thirsty' heathens - you have done so numerous times on these forums - I'd be happy to pull quotes for you." Please pull my quote, but not out of thin air.

Um, no, ljmac - I plainly said that there are some democrats that score better than McCain, the reigning prince of the GOP, and, in fact, there are some democrats that score a lot better than some Republicans on the issue of abortion - would you care to take issue with this? Because I can post these Republicans records, if you care to take issue with this. (BTW, you're side-tracking - just a hint; ).

I am not making things up ljmac, here are some of your quotes:

From your '50 million dead and thirsty for more' topic:

<from ljmac> post #1: "There is no end in sight. The left will continue to demand the entrails of the innocent. There is nothing so brutal, nasty, mean or cruel done in the name of abortion that they will not embrace.”

post #7, in response to rlj:

"quote:

There is no end in sight. The left will continue to demand the entrails of the innocent. There is nothing so brutal, nasty, mean or cruel done in the name of abortion that they will not embrace.


This is false. 16 democratic senators voted for the partial birth abortion plan and 3 abstained from voting on it. Obviously within the Senate there are liberals who can say that they aren't embracing every single version of abortion.

Any other rhetorical hogwash to spout about today?


As a group the left has never backed down from their desire for continued legalization of sucking the brains out of babies. Not NOW, not the ACLU, not the Democratic Party. There were a few Democratic Senators who voted to permit it's banishment..."

Would you care for me to post more of your posts? Because I will.

And, I see you have neglected the fact that Republicans failed to legislatively even try to return jurisdiction on the matter of sanctity of life back to the states (like Ron Paul is trying to do right now), when from 2000-2006, they controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. AND, AGAIN, you fail to address the fact that McCain has NOT promised to use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees; as well as the fact that he supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Peace and God bless,

liz,
You've got a vivid imagination. First you imagine that I "...have generalized ALL democrats as 'murdering, blood-thirsty' heathens - you have done so numerous times on these forums," then you 'prove' that I said that by quoting other things that I've said.

I don't care if you look up every post I've ever written, you'll never find where I said "All democrats" are "murdering, blood-thirsty heathens." Search forever if you'd like. If you ever come to grips with the fact that I've never said that, then you'll be free to stop making things up.

You'll never escape the fact that the Democratic Party is the abortion party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If McCain does not promise that he will use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees, how can he be better than the other ?

How can he be worse in this regard?

I don't think that was a real question from Liz. There are lots of people who want to pretend that if Death Roe is not overturned then it doesn't matter if the president is pro-life or not. Liz may be among these.

If she's read my posts, and I'm not sure she does, then she knows that I've spelled out numerous actions that GWB has taken to protect unborn children that a Democrat would not have taken.

Just one example is the Mexico City policy that prevents federal funds from going to foreign agencies that commit abortions. That's a policy started by RR and carried on by GHWB. Clinton stopped it and GWB reinstated it.

quote:

I didn't say he would be worse, Jack. As I asked before, why all the fuss over McCain if he cannot promise to use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees?! Please do let me know if you need clarification, though I don't know how else to put it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

Liz's analysis is full of flaws.

McCain "...scores a measly 66% from the NRLC - a measure that is highly revered on this site."
The whole story: McCain has been on the campaign trail and has missed four of the seven votes the NRLC has kept scores on. This tiny sample size is not representative of McCain's voting pattern on abortion.
Of the three votes he cast, two were with the NRLC and one about embryonic stem cell research was against.
When was the last time you saw someone even mention the NRLC, let alone their "higly revered" scoring system?

"There are Democrats in the House and Senate that score higher than this!"
The real story: There is ONE Democrat in the Senate that scored higher than McCain. I'm sure there is a proportionally paltry few in the House.

"...and people on these forums think that you cannot touch any Republicans record on the issue of abortion because they are all flawless."
Nobody has written that.

By the way, Obama scored zero. Clinton scored zero. About thirty Democrats in the Senate scored zero. Put it this way, thirty Democratic Senators added together made two fewer pro-life votes than John McCain did when he was hardly in Washington at all.

http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard.xc?chamber=S&state=US&session=110&x=12&y=11

No - ljmac, you have generalized ALL democrats as 'murdering, blood-thirsty' heathens - you have done so numerous times on these forums - I'd be happy to pull quotes for you. And when asked to qualify your answer - which site do you use? Why, none other than the nrlc.org. Then, on this note, you conveniently leave out the fact that McCain scores lower on the nrlc.org than some democrats. You also then, neglect to mention that, surprisingly (I was definitely surprised) there are quite a few Republicans that score lower than the democrats that I am about to mention.

And no - you are so biased that you do not want to see - that is the problem here.

Here are the nrlc.org scores of democrats that score as good or better than McCain:

House Reps:...

Senators:...

And on this note, ljmac - I noticed a surprisingly number of OTHER Republicans that score LOWER than even these 'evil' democrats! - would you like me to post their scores? And if you say that's not true - you are in denial and I will post them. And if you don't address this note - I will assume that you know this and that it is fair to say that the Republican, then are not the flawless princes on the subject of anti-abortion that you make them out to be.

And I also see that you do not care to address the fact that overturning RVW thru judicial appointments has NOT worked for DECADES. Republican presidents have appointed the majority of SC justices in the last 3 decades - and this has NOT overturned RVW.

And I also see that you fail to address the fact that Republicans did NOTHING at the Congressional level from 2000-2006 when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government - to return jurisdictin to the states on the matter of sanctity of life. They could have done what Ron Paul is trying to do right now with HR 2597. And where are the Republicans on this? And if you dismiss what Ron Paul is trying to do - then you must address the fact that overturning RVW through the judicial arm is plainly NOT working. And dismissing what Ron Paul is doing is simply making excuses for Republicans inactivity when it comes to returning federal jurisdiction to the states. Anyone who is not so biased they can't see or refuse to see; can plainly see this.

By the way - I know the scores of Clinton and Obama - I was pointing out that there are democrats that score better than McCain on being anti-abortion. And surprising to even me - there are even MORE Republicans that score lower than the aforementioned democrats!!! Unreal - and how convenient that you have never pointed this out - how very interesting.

And I also see that you did not address another VERY important point - that McCain has STILL NOT promised that he will use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justices appointees. If he does not promise this, with his 66% rating from the nrlc.org, why all the fuss over him?

Peace and God bless,

Liz,
Out of over perhaps 225 Democrats in the House you come up with about a dozen that score higher than McCain and offer that as proof of Democrats being pro-life? That's incredibly weak analysis. And let's not forget, that they voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker, and she'll surely kill any pro-life legislation as surely as liberals will kill the unborn.

I think you make things up as you go along. I never, "have generalized ALL democrats as 'murdering, blood-thirsty' heathens - you have done so numerous times on these forums - I'd be happy to pull quotes for you." Please pull my quote, but not out of thin air.

Um, no, ljmac - I...
Any other rhetorical hogwash to spout about today?


As a group the left has never backed down from their desire for continued legalization of sucking the brains out of babies. Not NOW, not the ACLU, not the Democratic Party. There were a few Democratic Senators who voted to permit it's banishment..."

Would you care for me to post more of your posts? Because I will.

And, I see you have neglected the fact that Republicans failed to legislatively even try to return jurisdiction on the matter of sanctity of life back to the states (like Ron Paul is trying to do right now), when from 2000-2006, they controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. AND, AGAIN, you fail to address the fact that McCain has NOT promised to use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees; as well as the fact that he supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Peace and God bless,

liz,
You've got a vivid imagination. First you imagine that I "...have generalized ALL democrats as 'murdering, blood-thirsty' heathens - you have done so numerous times on these forums," then you 'prove' that I said that by quoting other things that I've said.

I don't care if you look up every post I've ever written, you'll never find where I said "All democrats" are "murdering, blood-thirsty heathens." Search forever if you'd like. If you ever come to grips with the fact that I've never said that, then you'll be free to stop making things up.

You'll never escape the fact that the Democratic Party is the abortion party.

Um, no, ljmac. When you say things like:

"As a group the left has never backed down from their desire for continued legalization of sucking the brains out of babies."

That is generalizing - and you are saying that the left (ie we all know that means the Democrats) desire to suck the brains out of babies - in other words, democrats have never backed down from their desire to murder babies. Anyone who has eyes can see this.

And again, you are not addressing the facts I presented as usual because you are so biased you refuse to see.

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If McCain does not promise that he will use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees, how can he be better than the other ?

How can he be worse in this regard?

I don't think that was a real question from Liz. There are lots of people who want to pretend that if Death Roe is not overturned then it doesn't matter if the president is pro-life or not. Liz may be among these.

If she's read my posts, and I'm not sure she does, then she knows that I've spelled out numerous actions that GWB has taken to protect unborn children that a Democrat would not have taken.

Just one example is the Mexico City policy that prevents federal funds from going to foreign agencies that commit abortions. That's a policy started by RR and carried on by GHWB. Clinton stopped it and GWB reinstated it.

Hmmmm....let's see. Instead of admitting that the people that wave that pro-life flag in peoples faces, the Republicans - instead of admitting that they did not try to get a law like HR 2597 passed from 2000-2006 when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government; instead of admitting that McCain supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and that he has not promised he'll use an anti-abortion litmus test...instead of facing these things, let's divert people's attention away by looking at laws that are not directly related to overturning RVW and/or that are not going to have any bearing on the next election....interesting.

See, as an independent voter, we can see right thru this tactic. And another thing - you're not going to appeal to anyone by insisting that the party you support does not have flaws in regards to championing the pro-life issue.

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: jkdjr25

Then you're willingly and knowingly ignoring the NRLC's own data which was linked and posted above.

McCain scored 66% and the democrats listed in the study scored better. If you want to ignore those findings that's your choice. However you shouldn't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

The republicans are just as corrupt as any other party. They use Christians to get votes the same way that democrats use minorities. It's all a game to them. One big popularity contest and constant one upsmanship.

JK,
Do you understand statistics? The 66% score was based on a grand total of THREE votes out of probably hundreds of votes McCain has cast during his career on issues of interest to the NRLC.

The one vote McCain cast that the NRLC didn't like had nothing to do with abortion.

What do you think you're calling me on? I pointed it out way before you did that there were a few wayward Democrats that scored better than McCain.

If the measure is protecting innocent human beings, Republicans are virtuous and Democrats are corrupt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jkdjr25

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: jkdjr25

Then you're willingly and knowingly ignoring the NRLC's own data which was linked and posted above.

McCain scored 66% and the democrats listed in the study scored better. If you want to ignore those findings that's your choice. However you shouldn't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

The republicans are just as corrupt as any other party. They use Christians to get votes the same way that democrats use minorities. It's all a game to them. One big popularity contest and constant one upsmanship.

JK,
Do you understand statistics? The 66% score was based on a grand total of THREE votes out of probably hundreds of votes McCain has cast during his career on issues of interest to the NRLC.

The one vote McCain cast that the NRLC didn't like had nothing to do with abortion.

What do you think you're calling me on? I pointed it out way before you did that there were a few wayward Democrats that scored better than McCain.

If the measure is protecting innocent human beings, Republicans are virtuous and Democrats are corrupt.

By the quoted stats there are at least 12 democrats more virtuous than McCain on this issue. Some Republicans aren't good on abortion and some democrats are.

On the subject of protecting innocent life I find it interesting that people only seem to put the unborn in this category. What about the innocents that are killed in police shoot outs (which doesn't happen often but it does happen) or those killed in times of war? Don't they have a right to life too?

quote:

Liz,
Anyone who has eyes can see that I've never said "ALL democrats... 'murdering, blood-thirsty' heathens..." That is entirely false. I've written many times about the paltry few pro-life Democrats.

I stand by the statement that "As a group the left has never backed down from their desire for continued legalization of sucking the brains out of babies." When the Supreme Court upheld a law banning partial birth abortion in one of the states the only thing we heard from the left whining.

Democrats are the abortion party. They want it legal from the moment of conception to the last moment of birth. They want it legal for tragic reasons and for no reason at all. They want it legal if the baby is sick and if the baby is perfectly healthy. There are no limits on abortion that they find tolerable. If you disagree with this, then tell me one piece of federal legislation passed by a majority of democrats that in some way limits abortion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I didn't say he would be worse, Jack. As I asked before, why all the fuss over McCain if he cannot promise to use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees?! Please do let me know if you need clarification, though I don't know how else to put it.

Well, I think I have articulated at length on this before; we get to choose one candidate in this up coming election - who is the better alternative in this regard, who has a chance of winning? That is my criteria.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If McCain does not promise that he will use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees, how can he be better than the other ?

How can he be worse in this regard?

I don't think that was a real question from Liz. There are lots of people who want to pretend that if Death Roe is not overturned then it doesn't matter if the president is pro-life or not. Liz may be among these.

If she's read my posts, and I'm not sure she does, then she knows that I've spelled out numerous actions that GWB has taken to protect unborn children that a Democrat would not have taken.

Just one example is the Mexico City policy that prevents federal funds from going to foreign agencies that commit abortions. That's a policy started by RR and carried on by GHWB. Clinton stopped it and GWB reinstated it.

Hmmmm....let's see. Instead of admitting that the people that wave that pro-life flag in peoples faces, the Republicans - instead of admitting that they did not try to get a law like HR 2597 passed from 2000-2006 when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government; instead of admitting that McCain supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and that he has not promised he'll use an anti-abortion litmus test...instead of facing these things, let's divert people's attention away by looking at laws that are not directly related to overturning RVW and/or that are not going to have any bearing on the next election....interesting.

See, as an independent voter, we can see right thru this tactic. And another thing - you're not going to appeal to anyone by insisting that the party you support does not have flaws in regards to championing the pro-life issue.

Peace and God bless,

It's amazing that you can remember things that I haven't written and forget things that I have. I've written numerous times that McCain supports funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Republicans do not make litmus tests. They look for qualified judges that respect the Constitution.

The Mexico City policy saves lives and will be aborted as soon as HC or BHO take office. Hopefully for the little one's sake, that won't happen.

People have written ad nauseum about Ron Paul's worthless legislation. Only you and Paul find any value in it.

quote:

Hmmm...but I thought that using an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees is what you're supposed to do as the reigning prince of the Republican party? And, again, if McCain cannot promise that he'll use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees, how is he any better at a presidential level than either of the Democratic candidates?

quote:

I actually take what I believe is a "conservative" position when it comes to the Supreme Court (one that I don't think is shared by most conservatives, though), in that I don't like the court to make radical and sweeping decisions either way. I think it would be a tragedy if the court ended up being stacked too far in either direction -whether that direction be conservative or liberal. Conservatives often scream about "activist judges," but then at the same time they advocate nominating only judges who will advance a conservative agenda. I think the country would be in danger if the court consisted of either all conservatives or all liberals.

quote:

You need a balance of power, which I think is what we have right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
So you would have generally agreed with Dredd Scott? [;)]

quote:

quote:

You need a balance of power, which I think is what we have right now.

Only a liberal would say that...

quote:

Of course not. Although I'm not surprised by the ruling. It serves as a reminder that supreme court justices are really only as good as the society that produces them, as oppossed to being unbiased legal oracles. Which I think is all the more argument for being aware of the sort of people that we nominate and the balance of power.

quote:

Would you want 9 conservatives on the court?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Hmmm...but I thought that using an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees is what you're supposed to do as the reigning prince of the Republican party? And, again, if McCain cannot promise that he'll use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees, how is he any better at a presidential level than either of the Democratic candidates?

"Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."
John McCain - April 18, 2007

“There are estimates and, I don’t know if they’re true or not, that there are going to be a couple of vacancies on the Supreme Court in the next presidential term. I am proud to have played a role in the appointment of some great justices to the Court. I am very proud to have played a role in the appointment, nomination of two great Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito," McCain said.

"I tell you I will nominate only people who have a clear, complete adherence to the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench. That’s who I’ll nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court,”
John McCain - February 11, 2008

Sound like he has been pretty consistent about the kind of justices he would appoint; and the kind he would appoint are the kind that should be appointed.

quote:

BTW, Reagan used an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees; and Duncan Hunter promised to use one. The aforementioned quotations, Jack, say nothing of a promise to use an anti-abortion litmus test.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If McCain does not promise that he will use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees, how can he be better than the other ?

How can he be worse in this regard?

I don't think that was a real question from Liz. There are lots of people who want to pretend that if Death Roe is not overturned then it doesn't matter if the president is pro-life or not. Liz may be among these.

If she's read my posts, and I'm not sure she does, then she knows that I've spelled out numerous actions that GWB has taken to protect unborn children that a Democrat would not have taken.

Just one example is the Mexico City policy that prevents federal funds from going to foreign agencies that commit abortions. That's a policy started by RR and carried on by GHWB. Clinton stopped it and GWB reinstated it.

Hmmmm....let's see. Instead of admitting that the people that wave that pro-life flag in peoples faces, the Republicans - instead of admitting that they did not try to get a law like HR 2597 passed from 2000-2006 when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government; instead of admitting that McCain supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and that he has not promised he'll use an anti-abortion litmus test...instead of facing these things, let's divert people's attention away by looking at laws that are not directly related to overturning RVW and/or that are not going to have any bearing on the next election....interesting.

See, as an independent voter, we can see right thru this tactic. And another thing - you're not going to appeal to anyone by insisting that the party you support does not have flaws in regards to championing the pro-life issue.

Peace and God bless,

It's amazing that you can remember things that I haven't written and forget things that I have. I've written numerous times that McCain supports funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Republicans do not make litmus tests. They look for qualified judges that respect the Constitution.

The Mexico City policy saves lives and will be aborted as soon as HC or BHO take office. Hopefully for the little one's sake, that won't happen.

People have written ad nauseum about Ron Paul's worthless legislation. Only you and Paul find any value in it.

All I have read from your posts is lauding McCain on his pro-life record.

Reagan used an anti-abortion litmust test on his SC justice nominees and Duncan Hunter promised to use one.

Must be nice to have a crystal ball.

Funny, I have read the opposite & there are a fair amount of Ron Paul supporters here on these forums. And, the majority of the SC justices were appointed by Republican presdents in the last 3 decades - yet RVW STiLL has NOT been overturned. And you have the gall to criticize what Ron Paul is trying to do via HR 2597?! If you are so pro-life, and this is the only issue for you, I don't understand why you're not voting for him.

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

But it would have been consistent with your notion of a 'conservative' ruling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

BTW, Reagan used an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees; and Duncan Hunter promised to use one. The aforementioned quotations, Jack, say nothing of a promise to use an anti-abortion litmus test.

As you seem to see Reagan as the standard, I will consider quotes where he said he would use an anti-abotion litmus test on SC nominees.

Take your time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If McCain does not promise that he will use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees, how can he be better than the other ?

How can he be worse in this regard?

I don't think that was a real question from Liz. There are lots of people who want to pretend that if Death Roe is not overturned then it doesn't matter if the president is pro-life or not. Liz may be among these.

If she's read my posts, and I'm not sure she does, then she knows that I've spelled out numerous actions that GWB has taken to protect unborn children that a Democrat would not have taken.

Just one example is the Mexico City policy that prevents federal funds from going to foreign agencies that commit abortions. That's a policy started by RR and carried on by GHWB. Clinton stopped it and GWB reinstated it.

Hmmmm....let's see. Instead of admitting that the people that wave that pro-life flag in peoples faces, the Republicans - instead of admitting that they did not try to get a law like HR 2597 passed from 2000-2006 when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government; instead of admitting that McCain supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and that he has not promised he'll use an anti-abortion litmus test...instead of facing these things, let's divert people's attention away by looking at laws that are not directly related to overturning RVW and/or that are not going to have any bearing on the next election....interesting.

See, as an independent voter, we can see right thru this tactic. And another thing - you're not going to appeal to anyone by insisting that the party you support does not have flaws in regards to championing the pro-life issue.

Peace and God bless,

It's amazing that you can remember things that I haven't written and forget things that I have. I've written numerous times that McCain supports funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Republicans do not make litmus tests. They look for qualified judges that respect the Constitution.

The Mexico City policy saves lives and will be aborted as soon as HC or BHO take office. Hopefully for the little one's sake, that won't happen.

People have written ad nauseum about Ron Paul's worthless legislation. Only you and Paul find any value in it.

All I have read from your posts is lauding McCain on his pro-life record.

Reagan used an anti-abortion litmust test on his SC justice nominees and Duncan Hunter promised to use one.

Must be nice to have a crystal ball.

Funny, I have read the opposite & there are a fair amount of Ron Paul supporters here on these forums. And, the majority of the SC justices were appointed by Republican presdents in the last 3 decades - yet RVW STiLL has NOT been overturned. And you have the gall to criticize what Ron Paul is trying to do via HR 2597?! If you are so pro-life, and this is the only issue for you, I don't understand why you're not voting for him.

Peace and God bless,

When Babs Boxer (D-that's a surprise!) wrote legislation to override the Mexico City Policy, both HRC and BHO were cosponsors. I don't need a crystal ball when it comes to Democrats and abortion, it's one of the most consistent aspects of America.

I've never supported Ron Paul because he's a kook. His legislation that you're endlessly using as your litmus test for authentic pro-life identity has only five cosponsors. None of them are your beloved pro-life Democrats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If McCain does not promise that he will use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees, how can he be better than the other ?

How can he be worse in this regard?

I don't think that was a real question from Liz. There are lots of people who want to pretend that if Death Roe is not overturned then it doesn't matter if the president is pro-life or not. Liz may be among these.

If she's read my posts, and I'm not sure she does, then she knows that I've spelled out numerous actions that GWB has taken to protect unborn children that a Democrat would not have taken.

Just one example is the Mexico City policy that prevents federal funds from going to foreign agencies that commit abortions. That's a policy started by RR and carried on by GHWB. Clinton stopped it and GWB reinstated it.

Hmmmm.......Peace and God bless,

It's amazing that you can remember things that I haven't written and forget things that I have. I've written numerous times that McCain supports funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Republicans do not make litmus tests. They look for qualified judges that respect the Constitution.

The Mexico City policy saves lives and will be aborted as soon as HC or BHO take office. Hopefully for the little one's sake, that won't happen.

People have written ad nauseum about Ron Paul's worthless legislation. Only you and Paul find any value in it.

All I have read from your posts is lauding McCain on his pro-life record....
Peace and God bless,

When Babs Boxer (D-that's a surprise!) wrote legislation to override the Mexico City Policy, both HRC and BHO were cosponsors. I don't need a crystal ball when it comes to Democrats and abortion, it's one of the most consistent aspects of America.

I've never supported Ron Paul because he's a kook. His legislation that you're endlessly using as your litmus test for authentic pro-life identity has only five cosponsors. None of them are your beloved pro-life Democrats.

And Boxer's ammendment was co-sponsored by 2-3 Republicans: Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Susan Collins (Maine) and Nancy Johnson (R-CT); and I think 5 other Republicans supported it.
The Mexico City Policy prohibits foreign aid to foreign organizations that use their OWN NON-US money for family planning, correct? And the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act has prohibited the use of U.S. funds for abortion services since 1973 anyway, so what is the point of the Mexico City policy? It's preventing foreign aid to organizations that use their OWN NON-US money (ie they would use their OWN money) to promote the OTHER forms of conception: condom use, etc. So, no, ljmac - the Helms ammendment already prohibits the use of funds for abortions. The Mexico City policy prevents them from using their OWN money on OTHER forms of contraception like condoms, the pill, etc. Boxer's bill is fighting the Mexico City policy; NOT the Helms ammendment (which prohibits us funding to go to abortions in foreign lands).

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If McCain does not promise that he will use an anti-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees, how can he be better than the other ?

How can he be worse in this regard?

I don't think that was a real question from Liz. There are lots of people who want to pretend that if Death Roe is not overturned then it doesn't matter if the president is pro-life or not. Liz may be among these.

If she's read my posts, and I'm not sure she does, then she knows that I've spelled out numerous actions that GWB has taken to protect unborn children that a Democrat would not have taken.

Just one example is the Mexico City policy that prevents federal funds from going to foreign agencies that commit abortions. That's a policy started by RR and carried on by GHWB. Clinton stopped it and GWB reinstated it.

Hmmmm.......Peace and God bless,

It's amazing that you can remember things that I haven't written and forget things that I have. I've written numerous times that McCain supports funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Republicans do not make litmus tests. They look for qualified judges that respect the Constitution.

The Mexico City policy saves lives and will be aborted as soon as HC or BHO take office. Hopefully for the little one's sake, that won't happen.

People have written ad nauseum about Ron Paul's worthless legislation. Only you and Paul find any value in it.

All I have read from your posts is lauding McCain on his pro-life record....
Peace and God bless,

When Babs Boxer (D-that's a surprise!) wrote legislation to override the Mexico City Policy, both HRC and BHO were cosponsors. I don't need a crystal ball when it comes to Democrats and abortion, it's one of the most consistent aspects of America.

I've never supported Ron Paul because he's a kook. His legislation that you're endlessly using as your litmus test for authentic pro-life identity has only five cosponsors. None of them are your beloved pro-life Democrats.

And Boxer's ammendment was co-sponsored by 2-3 Republicans: Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Susan Collins (Maine) and Nancy Johnson (R-CT); and I think 5 other Republicans supported it.
The Mexico City Policy prohibits foreign aid to foreign organizations that use their OWN NON-US money for family planning, correct? And the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act has prohibited the use of U.S. funds for abortion services since 1973 anyway, so what is the point of the Mexico City policy? It's preventing foreign aid to organizations that use their OWN NON-US money (ie they would use their OWN money) to promote the OTHER forms of conception: condom use, etc. So, no, ljmac - the Helms ammendment already prohibits the use of funds for abortions. The Mexico City policy prevents them from using their OWN money on OTHER forms of contraception like condoms, the pill, etc. Boxer's bill is fighting the Mexico City policy; NOT the Helms ammendment (which prohibits us funding to go to abortions in foreign lands).

Peace and God bless,

Giving money to baby killers is not a good policy, but it is the standard Democratic policy. You defend it. I won't.