Probable GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson had said that he didn’t recall doing any lobbying work for a pro-choice organization, but billing records indicate he spent nearly 20 hours helping the group that wanted to ease some federal restriction on abortion counseling, the New York Times reported. Will that make him not pure enough for the GOP base, even though Thompson’s voting record while he was a senator was solidly pro-life? Perhaps more troubling for pro-lifers is that Thompson said in a 1994 campaign questionnaire that he didn’t believe abortion should be criminalized. Based on states’ rights, he also has opposed a constitutional amendment banning all abortion.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
144 Comments
“Thompson had said that he didn’t recall doing any lobbying work for a pro-choice organization, but billing records indicate he spent nearly 20 hours helping the group”
Sounds typical. Bill people for work you don’t intend to do. He’s not even ELECTED yet, and he’s using the “I don’t recall” line to cover up his fraudulent treatment of his clients.
If you really stop and think about it, why is abortion even an issue for candidates? We had a republican controlled presidency, congress, senate, AND SCOTUS. Nothing changed.
What makes the panic mongers think anything will change with the ‘08 presidency?
Nothing changed??? Sol, have you not been paying attention? The court ruled 5-4 in favor of the governmental restrictions on health care for women in Carhart v Gonzales.
this is off the subject a little..But have you noticed how many blog subjects are about Republican candidates and hardly any about the democratic candidate..
go to the catergory for presidential race and see what I’m talking about.. never anything about Hillery and Obama..
How can you drop a 1000lb bomb and still be pro-life?
The Court said that the lower courts had repudiated a central premise of Casey — that the state has an interest in preserving fetal life — and the Court held that the ban was narrowly tailored to address this interest. Relying deferentially on Congress’s findings that this intact dilation and extraction procedure is never needed to protect the health of a pregnant woman, Kennedy wrote that a health exception was therefore unnecessary. And, where medical testimony disputed Congress’s findings, Congress is still entitled to regulate in an area where the medical community has not reached a “consensus” — a finding at odds with the lower courts in this case.[2]
BG, you are correct.
Will Hillary Clinton be Pro-Life after the Democract Nomination?
I bet she does.
JW,
On what do you base you assumption? Just wondering.
your not you, guh need coffee
WE EDITORS
I am noticing a trend in your blogs here regarding the presidential race.
One where you seem to focus more (significantly more) on what is wrong with Republican Candidates while what coverage we do get on the Democrats is mearly a report on Hilary vs Obama progress.
How about some more critical blogs on the Democrats running for President?
How can you drop a 1000lb bomb and still be pro-life?
I don’t know Ed.
Why don’t you stand on a bomb range. Hold still. Wait till I drop a bomb on you.
Then I will post about how I can be both Pro-Life and drop a 1000lb bomb….
Cute and, of course, hypocritical as usual.
Sorry, Nathan. I think Ed has a point in this case.
Can’t remember.
Unbelievable.
Steve Martin had this comedy routine years ago. “But I know what you’re thinking, you’re thinking, ‘STEVE, What do I say to the judge when he asks me why I haven’t paid my taxes?’
“Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: I forgot.”
“How many times do we get ourselves in terrible situations because we don’t say, ‘I forgot.’
“Let’s say you’re on trial for armed robbery. You tell the judge, ‘I FORGOT armed robbery was illegal.’”
. . .
The RepubliCONs have been using it ever since.
Reagan: I can’t remember if I told people to fight an illegal war in Nicaragua using contras or not.
H. W. Bush: It was a “real shocker” to be picked as CIA director, as he claimed he had no contact with the agency. Seems he “forgot” about his connection to the CIA agent who started Zapata Petroleum Frank Devine. He also forgot about his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge.
George W. Bush: “Anybody in my administration who has leaked the name of a CIA agent will be taken care of.” . . . Unless it’s Scooter Libby, then he’ll get his sentence commuted.
The “Christian” has spoken as well as the “Pro-Lifer”
Some times you have to take a life to save lives. Have you not heard of the market bombings over there?
The New York Times article is spurious. Just because an attorney takes on a client, doesn’t mean he holds that ideology of the client.
This would like saying the Wichita Eagle supports murder because they ran articles on BTK.
Both are spurious and irrelevant.
From the article:
According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf.
Mr. Thompson’s work for the family planning agency has become an issue because he is positioning himself as a faithful conservative who is opposed to abortion.
*****
“Lobbying officials” is not simply discussing matters of law.
As previously written, Mr. Thompson was acting as an attorney for a client.
If he had done work for a Muslim organization, this would not have turned him into a Muslim nor one of the Muslim faith or ideology.
The concept of the story by the New York Times is an example of shoddy journalism with erroneous conclusions.
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton’s Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.
I don’t remember – 71I don’t know – 62I’m not sure – 17I have no idea – 10I don’t believe so – 9I don’t recall – 8I don’t think so – 8I don’t have any specific recollection – 6I have no recollection – 4Not to my knowledge – 4I just don’t remember – 4I don’t believe – 4I have no specific recollection – 3I might have – 3I don’t have any recollection of that – 2 I don’t have a specific memory – 2I don’t have any memory of that – 2I just can’t say – 2I have no direct knowledge of that – 2I don’t have any idea – 2Not that I recall – 2I don’t believe I did – 2I can’t remember – 2I can’t say – 2I do not remember doing so – 2Not that I remember – 2I’m not aware – 1I honestly don’t know – 1I don’t believe that I did – 1I’m fairly sure – 1I have no other recollection – 1I’m not positive – 1I certainly don’t think so – 1I don’t really remember – 1I would have no way of remembering that – 1That’s what I believe happened – 1To my knowledge, no – 1To the best of my knowledge – 1To the best of my memory – 1I honestly don’t recall – 1I honestly don’t remember – 1That’s all I know – 1I don’t have an independent recollection of that – 1I don’t actually have an independent memory of that – 1As far as I know – 1I don’t believe I ever did that – 1That’s all I know about that – 1I’m just not sure – 1Nothing that I remember – 1I simply don’t know – 1I would have no idea – 1I don’t know anything about that – 1I don’t have any direct knowledge of that – 1I just don’t know – 1I really don’t know – 1I can’t deny that, I just — I have no memory of that at all – 1
Steven,
Ed didn’t have a point. He had a quip.
Besides, once again, the term “Pro-Life” is not an all encompasing one. It is a term most commonly used to identify ones political view on abortion.
It is not any different than the “Pro-choice” term meaning that you support choice no matter what. It is a term used to describe your stance on abortion as well.
I have covered this too many times.
Yet every time, the pro-choice crowd absolutely refuses to engage in an honest debate. They have to completely mischaracterize the pro-life movement and even the term.
So, No, I don’t think Ed had a point at all….
Quite a list outlander. :)
Now if I can only remember in the future where I saw it. :D
What I do respect is the Sanctity of Life.
In order to protect life, you sometimes must destroy life.
Perfect Example:
Hitler.
In order to protect life and stop Hitler and his Army, we had to kill people to do it.
“Some times you have to take a life to save lives.”
That is called rationalization.
{ Notice the “life” and “lives” as justification, as if the 1000lb bomb only takes one life and saves many}.
We’re not dealing with Hitler, and stop digging that up everything you get cornered.
Excellent job of explaining the difference Nathan. Only a moron couldn’t see the distinction.
“George W. Bush: “Anybody in my administration who has leaked the name of a CIA agent will be taken care of.” . . .” posted by capnUnderpants
“WASHINGTON (AP) – A federal judge on Thursday dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal.Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband’s criticism of the administration.”—–
The Tokyo or Dresden bombings come to mind Ed Friedemann. They were heavily civilian populated areas, but also major industrial and distribution centers that supported the Axis war machine.
Both bombings were done to preserve Allied Forces lives to quicken the end to the war by traumatizing major centers of the Axis war methodology.
War is cruel and 1000 pounds bombs exist.
You know Israel can lob an H-Bomb on Palestine and there would be nothing left but a sea of glass sand.
There’s mixed blessing in every situation. :)
Dresden wasn’t an industrial center.
That was pure payback . . .
“Yet every time, the pro-choice crowd absolutely refuses to engage in an honest debate.”
Every time they refuse to deal with such a dishonest person. And you know what they mean, as you may be hypocritical, but not that stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
“The priority list drafted by Bottomley for Portal, so that he could discuss targets with the Soviets at Yalta, included only two eastern cities with a high enough priority to fit into the RAF targeting list as both transportation and industrial areas. These were Berlin and Dresden. Both were bombed after Yalta.”
“on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf”
This is not a case of an attorney from the defense bar taking on a client in the interest of seeing that _everyone_ gets their Constitutional right to counsel.
Lobbying is not criminal defense. Lobbying is issue/client advocacy.
You do not lobby for the other side. Ever.
Comparing Iraq to WWll is shear desperation for attempting to put religion into Governmental Law, which the 1st Amendment forbids.
Damn right Tom!
From the article in the NYT:
“Earlier this month, Mr. Thompson disputed accounts by the group’s former president and others, saying through a spokesman that he had “no recollection” of doing anything to aid the group’s efforts to overturn a rule banning federally financed clinics from dispensing information about abortion to pregnant women. At most, said Mr. Thompson’s spokesman, Mark Corallo, he “may have been consulted by one of the firm’s partners who represented this group.”
Yesterday, Mr. Corallo said the family planning group was an Arent Fox client.”
Arent Fox was the legal firm at which Thompson worked.
So Ed, let’s just go kill us some Israelis instead. Won’t that be fun?
So Ed, let’s just go kill us some Israelis instead. Won’t that be fun?
You sick Zionist Fu*k, no, that wouldn’t be fun. And we can make peace there by forcing the Zionists to stop killing Palestinians, which they do daily to keep any peace from happening.
But you already know that.
“he lobbied “administration officials” for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show”
Thompson is a liar. He’s either lying to the radical “conservatives,” or he’s lying to the American public about the lobbying work he’s done.
Pick a lie. It doesn’t matter which one.
If Thompson was a lobbyist, then it would be a simple matter to find the paperwork where he was a registered Lobbyist and who he represented.
The NYT offered no such evidence that I saw because there was no evidence of him being a Lobbyist.
From the NYT article:”In addition, he lobbied “administration officials” for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show, although they do not specify which officials he met with or what was said.
The billing records, along with meeting minutes from the association, show that Arent Fox was hired to help overturn the ban.”
In plain English, there is no evidence to who Mr. Thompson talked with in the administration and the minute meetings show that Arent Fox was hired to overturn the ban.
Arent Fox is a legal firm.
Nathan
“What I do respect is the Sanctity of Life.”
It that was true, you wouldn’t be allowing people to die from the lack of proper Stem-Cell Research.
Your a dishonest person because you pick and choose morality.
Attorneys have to prove or disprove essential elements of a case to be successful.
The same with blogging. :)
Ed,List the cures discovered from embryonic stem cell research vs. adult stem cell research.
The troll spins a lies to protect a liar.
1. The Lobbyist Registration Act became law in 1995, _after_ the time frame that Thompson lobbied for pro-choice causes.
2. The Act only requires government officials of specific categories, of which senators are one, to register.
3. Fred Thompson did his pro-choice lobbying work _before_ being elected to the US Senate. Even if the registration act had been in place in the years 91 to 94, he would not have been subject to the act.
The troll is either A) a moron or B) a liar.
Pick one.
Or pick both.
::shrug::
From the NYT article:”In addition, he lobbied “administration officials” for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show, although
******they do not specify which officials he met with or what was said.*******
The billing records, along with meeting minutes from the association, show that Arent Fox was hired to help overturn the ban.”
In plain English,
*****there is no evidence to who Mr. Thompson talked with in the administration*****
and the minute meetings show that Arent Fox was hired to overturn the ban.
Arent Fox is a legal firm.
“Ed,List the cures discovered from embryonic stem cell research vs. adult stem cell research.”
I can’t change your mind about anything, as the “baited question” answers that…
So you admit that adult stem cell research has been far more productive than EST research?
*ESC*
Thompson either committed fraud by billing his clients for work he didn’t do, or he’s lying to radicals about work he _did_ do.
Fred Thompson is a liar.
SolDevVB, I didn’t answer that “question” nor did your assumption became fact.
You Zionist inbred-bastards all hatched from the same Vulture’s nest.
Ed,
Shut the hell up.
Thanks.
What Thompson did or did not bill for as a private attorney is of little to no political consequence. His record is solid pro-life, as much as the NYT would like drive a wedge between Thompson and pro-lifers. Because they are afraid of his broad appeal.
Outlander,
A lobbyist does not work for the opposition. At least, an HONEST lobbyist does not work for the opposition.
Never.
Ed,It isn’t an assumption dumbass, its fact. Do your research before you spout off.
“You Zionist inbred-bastards all hatched from the same Vulture’s nest.”
Is this your assumption that I am a Zionist? That is a pretty far reach even for someone as ‘challenged’ as you.
Go burn an Israeli flag and feel better about your self eddie.
Go burn an American Flag and feel better about yourself Sollie
‘Thompson lobbied for abortion-rights group, it saysA spokesman for the GOP presidential hopeful says he did no such work. An ex-colleague calls the denial ‘bizarre.’ ‘http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-thompson7jul07,0,54260.story?coll=la-home-center
See page 2 of 1991 board meeting minutes at above, or here,http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-07/31063804.pdf
Can’t back up your idiotic statements. Can’t form a rational thought without wishing death on the Israelis. Can’t do much else other than name call.
What an AWESOME contribution to the blog you are eddie.
Heh, no kidding, Sol.
Don’t ask him about the Holocaust . . . he’ll jump down your throat for “BAITING!” him.
When you deal with Ed, you need to keep in mind there’s a difference between Zionists and Jews or Israelis. Ed isn’t anti-Jew, he’s anti-Zionist. We all should be a little more aware of what Zionists have cost this country and who they control.
Poke all the fun you want at the guy, but over the past couple of years he’s been right a lot more than he’s been wrong.
Evidence the bombing of Dresden was a war crime:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=357
The main reason for the destruction of this medieval city was as a warning to the advancing Red Army (also one of the main motivations behind the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan). To their credit, some RAF aircrews did not follow instructions during the raid.
Churchill, being an historian, became concerned about how these firestorms would be seen during the post-war period. On 28th March, 1945, Churchill wrote to Bomber Harris: “It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing material out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction.”
After the war some British historians were highly critical of the attack on Dresden. As it was clearly a terror attack on a civilian population some have described it as a war crime. Although terror bombing was Churchill’s policy, Harris took the blame and was not given the honours that men of equivalent rank were given. Harris was so bitter about this he emigrated to South Africa.
XXX–
Ed is anti-Jew too. He won’t state his views on the Holocaust.
What’s that tell you?
(Hint: wack-o)
Y’all won your fight for more “war” in congress last night….celebrating with a tap dance on Ed?
Well, Ed, in a box in my basement somewhere, I have my old crampons from my mountaineering days. If you’re inviting me to the tap dance, give me an hour to dig them out first, okay?
Tom
We’re are bantering with words here, but if you’re threatening violence { as you’ve just suggested } I’m not bothered by that or your “crampons,” but the WE might be.
Call me an asshole, that doesn’t make either of us bleed.
“Ed is anti-Jew too. He won’t state his views on the Holocaust.
What’s that tell you?”Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 19, 2007 at 04:07 PM
It tells me exactly the same thing it should tell you…exactly nothing. I’ll admit I haven’t read every single post Ed has ever made, but I sure don’t recall him ever denying the Holocaust. I could be wrong. If I am, show me.
I have read all of his posts today and I really have to wonder where all the hate is coming from.
“How can you drop a 1000lb bomb and still be pro-life?”Posted by: Ed Friedemann | July 19, 2007 at 02:01 PM
I think that’s a perfectly rational question.
“Some times you have to take a life to save lives.”
That is called rationalization.
“(Notice the “life” and “lives” as justification, as if the 1000lb bomb only takes one life and saves many}.”Posted by: Ed Friedemann | July 19, 2007 at 02:27 PM
Again a perfectly rational statement, with which I totally agree.
“We’re not dealing with Hitler, and stop digging that up everything you get cornered.”Posted by: Ed Friedemann | July 19, 2007 at 02:29 PM
Responding to Nathan, yet again a true statement.
And then the attacks begin, not against the idea, but the poster. While I’ll be the first to agree that Ed has a tendency to get cranky, half the posters on this page attacked him personally without justification re his statements.
XXX,
When Ed starts by mischaracterizing the “Pro-Life” term. What did you expect?
He says dropping a bomb makes you not support life.
I say dropping bombs on Hitler to stop did indeed save lives.
It was to prove my point.
He called me dishonest and characterized me as being cornered.
So, please take the side of the man who does little more than call for the destruction of Israel.
Nathan, your comment is not my point.
“He says dropping a bomb makes you not support life.”
Oh, really? Are you saying that “dropping bombs” is supporting life?
XXX,
Would you kill someone to stop them from killing or causing sever bodily harm to your wife?
Yes, I am saying dropping bombs is supporting life.
As my previous post said. It is called protecting the Sanctity of Life.
Do you support Law Enforcement Officers using deadly force to protect people or themselves from death or serious bodily harm?
I do not support the indescriminate dropping of bombs all over killing people needlessly.
When we are dropping bombs we are using some of the most High tech precision weaponry in existence so that we can minimize any collateral damage.
Of course Ed would have us believe we are purposfully dropping 1000lb bombs on children in the playground just because.
Nathan
Israelis can live in peace, but not with the Zionists running things. They make trouble everyday. The Zionist make you think that they represent all Israelis, and that is not true.
Sorry, Nathan. I think Ed successfully manuevered you into stating what pro-choice people claim about uber conservatives: Life is important up until the time of birth. Then life becomes much less important to conservatives.
Ed may have views on Israel that are repugnant, but that doesn’t by extension mean that he is wrong here.
“Of course Ed would have us believe we are purposfully dropping 1000lb bombs on children in the playground just because.”
That is a lie.
C’mon people. Thompson practiced law, doing legal work for clients. Does that mean he necessarily agrees with his clients? NO.
“A lobbyist does not work for the opposition. At least, an HONEST lobbyist does not work for the opposition.” -Tom, at 3:41.
Of course he does, if his law firm has that organization as a client. If he did, he was a lobbyist, paid to argue a particular point of view, not necessarily agreeing with a point of view. His duty is to his client, not his own views. So what?
Much ado about nothing; perhaps more than anything else it shows that the Democrats fear Thompson as the candidate most likely to win against them in November 08.
But at this point, some 14 months before election day? Who cares.
And Ed? He’s racist scrollover.
“Life is important up until the time of birth. Then life becomes much less important to conservatives.”
Ah, the Equivocation Argument:
All trees have bark.All dogs bark.Therefore, all dogs are trees.
:)
“In order to protect life, you sometimes must destroy life.”That is why I am pro-choice
“Would you kill someone to stop them from killing or causing sever bodily harm to your wife?”Posted by: Nathan | July 19, 2007 at 04:51 PM
Heh, heh… Nathan, of all people, you know the answer to that question. For those that don’t, yes, I would kill someone to stop them from harming my wife.
The difference is, I wouldn’t kill everyone in the neighborhood. I’ve always tried to be selective about who I kill.
“Do you support Law Enforcement Officers using deadly force to protect people or themselves from death or serious bodily harm?”Posted by: Nathan | July 19, 2007 at 04:54 PM
Of course I do. But I’d be very upset if they killed everyone in sight.
“Of course Ed would have us believe we are purposfully dropping 1000lb bombs on children in the playground just because.”Posted by: Nathan | July 19, 2007 at 04:56 PM
Funny, I didn’t get that from any of his posts.
“In order to protect life, you sometimes must destroy life.”That is why I am pro-choice
Posted by: brian | July 19, 2007 at 05:22 PM
Well-spoken, Brian
It’s interesting that the NYT and H.Clinton supporters are so interested in the legal work Thompson did over 15 years ago. The more important question is why they think it matters.
First, representing an abortion rights organization is not illegal. The NYT is playing “gotcha” politics, but there is nothing illegal or even unethical about with what they are claiming he did.
Second, if he did lobby on behalf of a pro-choice organization, so what? Does that mean he isn’t pro-life? The NYT editorial board is certainly in no place to be arbiter of a candidate’s committment to pro-life causes.
Even if he did represent a pro-choice group, what effect did it have on Fred Thompson as a public official? Apparently none, based on his voting record in the Senate.
Finally, it is quite reasonable to believe that someone might not have absolute recollection of every client, job and phone call 15 years in the past.
“In order to protect life, you sometimes must destroy life.”That is why I am pro-choice
Posted by: brian | July 19, 2007 at 05:22 PM
Also an admission that a fetus is a life. :)
Finally, it is quite reasonable to believe that someone might not have absolute recollection of every client, job and phone call 15 years in the past.
Posted by: Milton | July 19, 2007 at 05:43 PM
Very true Milton, it’s why they have court reporters in a court room. :)
haha, I meant court recorders, not reporters.
I must have been infected with the NYT virus. :)
Why don’t you stand on a bomb range. Hold still. Wait till I drop a bomb on you.
Then I will post about how I can be both Pro-Life and drop a 1000lb bomb….
Posted by: Nathan
this posting tells everything anyone needs to know about Nathan. Hypocrisy and arrogance – two characteristics a good Christian Conservative Republican has to have.
For all of Ed’s Diatribe against Jews isn’t Freidemann a Jewish name? I wonder what his family did to him as a child to make him so hateful?
“this posting tells everything anyone needs to know about Nathan. Hypocrisy and arrogance – two characteristics a good Christian Conservative Republican has to have.”Posted by: sinful | July 19, 2007 at 06:22 PM
Actually sinful, there’s a lot more to tell about Nathan. Arrogant? Maybe the arrogance of youth, nothing more. Hypocrisy? Not intentionally.
Nathan may need a little seasoning, but he’s a good man; one I’d trust to watch my back. I know him personally and though we’ve fought like cats and dogs on these boards, I find him worthy of respect.
Instead of guessing where he stands based on his work as an attorney, why not see where he stands based on his VOTES as a Senator?
Naaa, Eagle ignores facts. Just a cheap shot by the Eagle at the leading Conservative soon to be candidate for POTUS.
Hmmmmmmm, NO votes FOR ABORTION.
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22003&type=category&category=2&go.x=13&go.y=13
06/20/2000 Military Abortions Amendment Y02/02/2000 Violent Protestors Amendment N10/21/1999 Roe v. Wade Amendment N10/21/1999 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999 Y05/26/1999 Overseas Military Abortions Amendment Y09/18/1998 Late-Term Abortion – Override President’s Veto Y06/25/1998 Overseas Military Hospital Abortions Amendment N09/04/1997 Fetal Tissue Research Amendment Y07/22/1997 Abortion Funding Amendment Y07/10/1997 Abortions at Overseas Military Facilities N05/20/1997 Partial-Birth Abortion bill Y09/26/1996 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Y06/19/1996 Overseas Abortion Amendment Y03/19/1996 Medical Professionals Amendment Y12/07/1995 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 Y
Budget issues are sort of important too for a candidate:
Budget, Spending and Taxes(Back to top)
Date Bill Title Vote05/26/2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, 2001 Y05/23/2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, 2001 Y05/10/2001 Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution Y07/14/2000 Death/Estate Tax Elimination Act of 2000 Y07/13/2000 Death/Estate Tax Amendment N04/13/2000 Congressional Budget resolution FY 2001 Y04/07/2000 Congressional Budget resolution FY 2001 Y08/05/1999 Financial Freedom Act of 1999 Y07/30/1999 Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 Y05/06/1999 Financial Services Modernization Bill Y04/15/1999 Congressional Budget Resolution, FY 2000 Y03/25/1999 Congressional Budget Resolution, FY 2000 Y06/04/1998 Underage Tobacco Usage amendment Y04/30/1998 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill Y04/02/1998 Budget Resolution FY99 Y04/01/1998 Medicare Choices Amendment Y04/01/1998 Personal Retirement Accounts Amendment Y04/01/1998 School Modernization Amendment Y03/31/1998 Deficit Neutral Reserve Fund Amendment N03/31/1998 Tobacco Immunity Amendment Y07/31/1997 Budget Reconciliation bill N07/31/1997 Budget Reconciliation Bill Y06/27/1997 Budget Reconciliation Bill Y06/26/1997 Family Tax Relief Amendment N06/25/1997 Budget Reconciliation bill Y06/05/1997 Budget Resolution FY1999-2000 N05/23/1997 Budget Resolution FY1999-2000 N05/22/1997 Budget Deficit Amendment N03/04/1997 Balanced Budget amendment Y08/02/1996 Minimum Wage Increase bill Y07/09/1996 Minimum Wage Increase bill Y06/06/1996 Balanced Budget Proposed Constitutional Amendment Y10/27/1995 Budget Reconciliation bill Y06/29/1995 Budget FY2006 Appropriations Resolution Y05/25/1995 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Y05/25/1995 Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution – Adoption Y03/23/1995 Pay-As-You-Go Amendment Y03/02/1995 Balanced Budget Proposed Constitutional Amendment Y
Tsk Tsk Tsk
Chas you might type better with two hands on the keyboard.
Some more information on Fred Thompson:
Background InformationGender: MaleFamily: Wife: Jeri Kehn5 Children: Tony, Betsy (deceased), Daniel, Hayden, Samual.Birth date: 08/19/1942Birthplace: Sheffield, ALHome City: Lawrenceburg, TNReligion: Church of Christ
Education:JD, Vanderbilt University, 1967BS, Memphis State University, 1964.
Professional Experience:Practicing Attorney, 1967-1994ActorAuthor ‘At That Point in Time’Factory WorkerShoe SalesmanTruck Driver.
Political Experience:Senator, United States Senate, 1994-2002Elected to Senate in a Special Election, November 8, 1994Appellate Court Nominating Committee, TN, 1985-1987Special Counsel to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, 1982Special Counsel to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1980-1981Special Counsel to Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander, 1980Chief Republican Counsel (Minority Counsel),US Senate Watergate Committee, 1973-1974Assistant US Attorney, Middle Tennessee, 1969-1972Campaign Manager, Howard BakerStaff Attorney to Senator Howard Baker.
Organizations:
Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:US Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, Special CounselSenate Watergate Committee, Minority Counsel.
I’m pro life.
In today’s world that merely means that I’m against abortion. I’m against destroying a fetus, zygote or whatever, for any reason.
Now, I can support this position from a religious, social, logical, secular or any other way you want to. I’m against the killing of innocent life.
Now people will try to set up false premises to try and make my position look extreme or hypocritical. They’ll do this with the death penalty, (I’m for it if someone takes an innocent life) dropping of thousand pound bombs (I’m for it if we are dropping them on enemies that are determined to destroy our way life) or even with support of CCH (I have a license).
I’m pro life. I’m a Christian. That doesn’t mean that I won’t defend my right to worship, to the death. That doesn’t mean that I won’t defend my family, to the death. That doesn’t mean that I won’t defend my country, to the death.
Hank
I’m Pro Choice… It means PRO Choice… If you choose NOT to have an abortion, hallelujah!! That is YOUR Choice… If circumstances, or health, or other matters influence your decision to choose Abortion, then have the abortion… You still have CHOICE… Pro Choice is NOT pro death… it is just, simply, PRO CHOICE…
If you dont believe in abortion, dont have one… It really is that simple…
Max,
Thanks for listing Thompson’s voting record. Now I’m sure I wouldn’t vote for him. ;)
Reagan: I can’t remember if I told people to fight an illegal war in Nicaragua using contras or not.
Considering that Ronnie had Oldtimers disease, I doubt he remembered he was even President toward the end of his term.
When was the last time anyone suggested a Constituitional ammendment to ban abortion?I thought this was always a Supreme Court/States Right issue.
Well, I see in my absense some of you have errected enough strawmen to beat down without me.
When/If you are actually interested in a discussion without distorting what I say or ignoring the rest, let me know.
If you dont believe in abortion, dont have one… It really is that simple…
Posted by: chas. | July 19, 2007 at 08:34 PM
Interesting, reduce any argument to the point that it can be put on a bumper sticker.
If it was really that simple, there would be no discussion.
If you don’t like spinach, don’t eat it. Is the abortion question really that simple?
No, I think you either believe in the sanctity of life or you don’t. It’s that simple.
Hank
“No, I think you either believe in the sanctity of life or you don’t. It’s that simple. ”
No, Hank, it’s not really as cut and dried as it seems now is it?
When you are saving the life of the mother, whether it be through all sorts of different qualifiers of what her life means to her…
When we’re talking the death penalty for those who could be incarcerated for life…
When we’re talking war, especially war when it is UNNECESSARY.
Not simple at all.
oh come on… your troglidites, your positions are so 19th century, responding to you is completely irrelevant… Do something else with your time.
Thompson, bring the limp dumbass on, PLEASE! His ass will be kicked so thoroughly, it will be embarassing for you all… Good night.
You’re right p-mom it’s not simple.
I don’t have any problem with the idea of the death penalty, if it could be applied justly and equally. I could even go for life in prison, but less than one in ten people sentenced to life in prison actually die in prison. Many of them kill again, in and out of prison. The biggest cause of death on California’s death row is old age.
Most medical associations will tell you that abortion is almost never needed to save the life of the mother. In fact, more women die of legal abortion procedures than are saved by them.
War, is it ever necessary? I think it is if you or an ally are attacked. War is only brutal and unnecessary if you don’t enter into it to win as quickly as possible.
Hell, I don’t have answers for any of the social ills in this life. All I can do is try to live a moral and principled life the best I can. I pray for guidance in the morning, forgiveness at night and give ‘em hell in between.
Hank
Ed is right, the Jews are responsible for most evil in the wrold today. They killed Christ, they are anti-Christ and they plan to rule in their satanic, talmudic, new world order system.
They hide behind the holocaust fairytale. Wake up people!!
Mel Gibson, Genius
Ever-Diminishing Official Numbers Of Auschwitz Dead
9,000,000
Source: Cited by the French documentary, Night and Fog, which has been shown to millions of school students worldwide.
8,000,000
Source: The French War Crime Research Office, Doc. 31, 1945.
7,000,000
Source: Also cited by the French War Crime Research Office.
6,000,000
Source: Cited in the book Auschwitz Doctor by Miklos Nyiszli. It has since been proven that this book is a fraud and the “doctor” was never even at Auschwitz, even though the book is often cited by historians.
5,000,000 to 5,500,000
Source: Cited in 1945 at the trial of Auschwitz commander Rudolf H�ss, based on his confession which was written in English, a language he never spoke.
5,000,000
Source: Cited on April 20, 1978 by the French daily, Le Monde. Also cited on January 23, 1995 by the German daily Die Welt. By September 1, 1989, Le Monde reduced the figure to 1,433,000.
4,500,000
Source: In 1945 this figure was cited by another witness at the aforementioned H�ss trial.
4,000,000
Source: Cited by a Soviet document of May 6, 1945 and officially acknowledged by the Nuremberg War Crimes trial. This figure was also reported in The New York Times on April 18, 1945, although 50 years later on January 26, 1995, The New York Times and The Washington Post slashed the figure to 1,500,000 citing new findings by the Auschwitz Museum officials. In fact, the figure of 4,000,000 was later repudiated by the Auschwitz museum officials in 1990 but the figure of 1,500,000 victims was not formally announced by Polish President Lech Walesa until five years after the Auschwitz historians had first announced their discovery.
3,500,000
Source: Cited in the 1991 edition of the Dictionary of the French Language and by Claude Lanzmann in 1980 in his introduction to Filip Muller’s book, Three Years in an Auschwitz Gas Chamber.
3,000,000
Source: Cited in a forced confession by Rudolf H�ss, the Auschwitz commander who said this was the number of those who had died at Auschwitz prior to Dec. 1, 1943. Later cited in the June 7, 1993 issue of Heritage, the most widely read Jewish newspaper in California, even though three years previously the authorities at the Auschwitz museum had scaled down the figure to a minimum of 1,100,000 and a maximum of 1,500,000. (see below).
2,500,000
Source: Cited by Rudolf Vrba (an author of various fraudulent accounts of events he claims to have witnessed at Auschwitz) when he testified on July 16, 1981 for the Israeli government’s war crimes trial of former SS official Adolf Eichmann.
2,000,000
Source: Cited by Leon Poliakov (1951) writing in Harvest of Hate; Georges Wellers, writing in 1973 in The Yellow Star at the Time of Vichy; and Lucy Dawidowicz, writing in 1975 in The War Against the Jews.
2,000,000 to 4,000,000
Source: Cited by Yehuda Bauer in 1982 in his book, A History of the Holocaust. However, by 1989 Bauer revised his figure to 1,600,000.
1,600,000
Source: This is a 1989 revision by Yehuda Bauer of his earlier figure in 1982 of 2,000,000 to 4,000,000, Bauer cited this new figure on September 22, 1989 in The Jerusalem Post, at which time he wrote “The larger figures have been dismissed for years, except that it hasn’t reached the public yet.”
1,500,000
Source: In 1995 this was the number of Auschwitz deaths announced by Polish President Lech Walesa as determined by those at the Auschwitz museum. This number was inscribed on the monument at the Auschwitz camp at that time, thereby “replacing” the earlier 4,000,000 figure that had been formally repudiated (and withdrawn from the monument) five years earlier in 1990. At that time, on July 17, 1990 The Washington Times reprinted a brief article from The London Daily Telegraph citing the “new” figure of 1,500,000 that had been determined by the authorities at the Auschwitz museum. This new figure was reported two years later in a UPI report published in the New York Post on March 26, 1992. On January 26, 1995 both The Washington Post and The New York Times cited this 1,500,000 figure as the new “official” figure (citing the Auschwitz Museum authorities).
1,471,595
Source: This is a 1983 figure cited by Georges Wellers who (as noted previously) had determined, writing in 1973, that some 2,000,000 had died.
1,433,000
Source: This figure was cited on September 1, 1989 by the French daily, Le Monde, which earlier, on April 20, 1978, had cited the figure at 4,000,000.
1,250,000
Source: In the book, The Destruction of the European Jews, by Raul Hilberg (1985).
1,100,000 to 1,500,000
Source: Sources for this estimate are Yisrael Gutman and Michael Berenbaum in their 1984 book, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp. This estimate was later also cited by Walter Reich, former director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, writing in The Washington Post on September 8, 1998. The upper figure of 1,500,000 is (the new) “official” figure as now inscribed at Auschwitz, with the earlier figure of 4,000,000 having been removed from the memorial at the site of the former concentration camp.
1,000,000
Source: Jean-Claude Pressac, writing in his 1989 book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. This is interesting since he wrote his book to repudiate so-called “Holocaust deniers” who were called that precisely because they had questioned the numbers of those who had died at Auschwitz.
900,000
Source: Reported on August 3, 1990 11, by Aufbau, a Jewish newspaper in New York.
800,000 to 900,000
Source: Reported by Gerald Reitlinger in his book, The Final Solution.
775,000 to 800,000
Source: Jean-Claude Pressac’s revised figure, put forth in his 1993 book, The Crematoria of Auschwitz: The Mass Murder’s Machinery, scaling down his earlier claim of 1,000,000 dead.
630,000 to 710,000
Source: In 1994 Pressac scaled his figure down somewhat further; this is the figure cited in the German language translation of Pressac’s 1993 book originally published in French. Again, this is substantially less than Pressac’s 1989 figure of 1,000,000.
135,000 to 140,000
Source: This is an estimate based on documents held by the International Tracing Service of the Red Cross. It is known that International Tracing Service has a complete set of registration documents. This is thought to include a complete set of roll-call data which includes twice daily tallies of those who died. Although the International Tracing Service of the Red Cross has such records, they have never officially published an accurate count of those who died, or even an accurate report as to exactly which documents they hold. However, totals from these records have been obtained by various interested parties.
The estimate of 135,000 is roughly corroborated by the “Auschwitz death books.” The death books themselves are wartime German camp records, which were captured by the Soviets towards the end of the war, and hidden in Soviet achieves, until released to the Red Cross in 1989.
The death books consist of 46 volumes which document each death at Auschwitz (each death certificate consists of the deceased person’s full name, profession and religion, date and place of birth, pre-Auschwitz residence, parents’ names, time of death, and cause of death as determined by a camp physician). The records for the most important years, 1942 and 1943, are almost complete (there are also a few volumes for the year 1941, but none for the year 1944 or January 1945 (when Auschwitz was evacuated)).
The Auschwitz death books contain the death certificates of some 69,000 individuals, of whom about 30,000 were listed as Jews.
“Most medical associations will tell you that abortion is almost never needed to save the life of the mother. In fact, more women die of legal abortion procedures than are saved by them. ”
I certainly hope you have something to back this statement up? Women die more often from giving BIRTH than they do from legal abortions.
“But as has been the experience in other countries, legalization has enabled women to obtain earlier, safer abortions. Today, more than half of abortions in this country occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, three-quarters within 12 weeks and almost 99% within 20 weeks. (A full-term pregnancy lasts 38 weeks.) A woman’s risk of dying from abortion-related complications in this country (0.4 deaths per 100,000 procedures performed before eight weeks’ gestation) is significantly lower than her risk of dying as the result of pregnancy or childbirth (seven deaths per 100,000 live births).”
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html
Sorry — I didnt mean to imply that Abortion is that simple… Just the need to get rid of all of the right/wrong; good/evil; my bible/your bible stuff… Thats all… Beyond that, it IS NOT simple… especially when there are so many against abortion, that they are willing to be permanent disruptive forces, vandalizers of private property, and even murderers….
“Max,
Thanks for listing Thompson’s voting record. Now I’m sure I wouldn’t vote for him. ;)”
Posted by: RD | July 19, 2007 at 08:45 PM
Glad to be of service RD.
My point was to clarify Thompon’s position on this issue, from his record.
The Eagle, for some reason, seems to be very confused, and as usual is ignoring some key facts in the story they wrote today on Thompson.
If you simply look at his voting record, it’s very, very clear that he is Pro Life.
(Just like the Eagle goes on and on about the Tiarht Amendment, yet there is NO evidence that anyone at the Eagle even read the Amendment!)
Why would the Eagle try to deflect some of the conservative base away from Thompson? Because they are afraid of the tough ole SOB.
Abortion is such a polarizing topic, people have made up their minds one way or the other. I try not to waste to much time then, to sway anyone one way or the other.
So, if you are so strongly for abortion, at least now you know Thompson’s position on this, and make an informed decision, or at least that was the goal of writing the biographical posts.
Informed Decision Eagle, hmmm…What a concept. Eagle, you might try that some time.
“…especially when there are so many against abortion, that they are willing to be permanent disruptive forces, vandalizers of private property, and even murderers….”
Posted by: chas. | July 19, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Pro-life people are “even murderers” Chas? And Abortionists are not?
Hmmmmm…………………
(I know, I said I wouldn’t jump in and argue this issue, but Chas left his guard down, again)
I hear toads croaking…..
Oh great…
The great hype.
So tell me chas, how many abortion doctors have been murdered?
I don’t agree with it. It is wrong to do so.
But sitting here acting like even close to a significant number of Pro-Life people support, condone, or are a part of killing abortion doctors is patently absurd.
Look, I am not eeven going to get into the waccko argument of the now infamous Right to Life Coalition, …
I tell ya what… you Anti- Abortion folks… Go look up Leviticus 20:20… See what it says about Abortion…
I tell ya what… you Anti- Abortion folks… Go look up Leviticus 20:20… See what it says about Abortion…
Posted by: chas. | July 20, 2007 at 02:42 AM
“And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.”
Okay Chas I looked now explain how this applies to abortion.
I didn’t even see a liberal interpretation relating to abortion.
======
Or course, people can always make a literal translation of the Bible such as in the case below.
Did you know that females were the first smokers of cigarettes? It says so in Genesis.
“And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel.”
:D
Chas is no minister of any faith. At least not a paid minister.
C’mon people. Thompson practiced law, doing legal work for clients. Does that mean he necessarily agrees with his clients? NO.Posted by: GMC70 | July 19, 2007 at 05:09 PM
GMC,
You and other Thompson apologists keep trying to conflate legal representation with lobbying. While many lawyers are lobbyists, and many lobbying firms hire lawyers, the two _are_not_the_same._ As issue advocates, especially on the contentious social issues, _HONEST_ lobbyists _NEVER_ lobby for the opposition. Never.
So I stand by my original point, at the top of this thread: Thompson has either fraudulently billed his clients, or he’s lying to the anti-choice radicals. There’s not a middle ground on this.
Or Tom, you are just dead wrong and simply deny Thompson’s explanation that he was never a lobbyist for that family planning unit.
Why don’t you just call Thompson a liar and get it over with?
From earlier:
“And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.”
Bearing their sin (she’s pregnant); they shall die childless… they will be executed.
Child in the uincle’s wife dies too…
Okay, Chas…but that appears to be a warning from God and not equated to an abortion performance by a human.
So what you are saying Chas, is that God does not have a problem killing the unborn? So abortion is not that big of a deal.
I would disagree brian. That Biblical verse is stating they will die childless. That is, the inability to have children.
It says nothing about the woman becoming pregnant and God aborting the fetus.
Not all sexual encounters result in pregnancy.
Bearing their sin is not a physical attribute, it is a spiritual attribute.
Jesus wept Max!
“Abortion is such a polarizing topic, people have made up their minds one way or the other. I try not to waste to much time then, to sway anyone one way or the other.”
and then you say:
“So, if you are so strongly for abortion”
And you wonder WHY it is polarizing? Because idiots like you use language like THAT!
I dont know anyone who is “strongly for abortion”.
I do know people who support a woman’s right to privacy and a woman’s right to chose.
But nice try slipping in the inflamatory language right after warning about polarization. And nice job painting those who support choice as being “for abortion”.
Big EFFIN eye roll.
WE are amused, and we do encourage you to try again…
“So what you are saying Chas, is that God does not have a problem killing the unborn?”
So.. does this mean YOU know the mind of god? And they wonder why we want a separation of church and state?
Here’s a clue boy. Those voices you hear in your head are not necessarily “god’s voice” telling YOU what he/she thinks.
Good GRIEF you guys are insane today!
Farmgirl, t a k e a p i l l.
Abortion guilt farmgirl?
You are still better off then the how the baby wound up.
Chas,
Where are all those murders you seem to think Pro-Life people support, condone, or committ?
Chas,
If you want to use the Bible in this discussion, you might actually choose a verse that says something about abortion.
The verse you quoted says: “THEY shall bear each others sin.”
So I guess the man was pregnant according to the chas interpretation too?
Then we need to look at verses like where God says even before you were born God knew you in the womb.
How about when Mary was pregnant with Jesus…
If you want to use the Bible you need to use the Bible.
You fall prey to the clasic problem with people like you. You try to isolate one verse, take it out of context, and then misinterpret it to make a doctrinal statement.
It is disingenuous.
No Max, thankfully, I’ve never been pregnant. Which makes ME think I dont have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies.
Unlike you.
No apology for your “for abortion” comment?
Typical. Being a wingnut means you never have to say you’re sorry. Or wrong.
I notice Max never answers questions, he/she only asks them.
Now… who does THAT remind you of?
“So I guess the man was pregnant according to the chas interpretation too?”
haha Nathan!
Thanks for the chuckle. :)
The problem with throwing Bible quotations out to support a viewpoint, is that it is easy to find a contradictory quotation to refute that viewpoint. (Or at very least to identify something more important.)
NO Kansas… they were both executed for their ACT… and the result is that Baby is killed in the execution… Do you know NOTHING of Biblical History???
Good grief!!!
C’mon Tom – attorneys, whether acting as “traditional” attorneys, or as “lobbyists,” advocate for their clients. That’s what attorneys do. It appears that Thompson’s firm had this organization as a client, and – shockingly – as a member of the firm, Thompson did some work for them. I have no problem framing an argument I disagree with, and as an attorney I may well have to argue just that (and in fact have had to do so).
If I don’t agree with abortion, can I, as a concrete contractor, nonetheless lay concrete at an abortion clinic? Of course. I’m hired to do a job, not to agree or disagree with those who hire me.
You draw an artifical distinction – and as I understand you are in fact a lobbyist, you know full well that is the case.
Besides, as has been pointed out, isn’t a voting record the best predictor of a positon? The voting record’s pretty clear.
Tempest. Teapot. I smell worry among the Democrats.
GMC–
Heh, more lawyer talk for “hypocrisy is okay if you’re a lawyer.”
It’s not the democrats you need to worry about; it’s the wack-o fundy wing that heretofore voted Republican in lieu of thinking . . .
Actually, I should clarify, “hypocrisy is a JOB REQUIREMENT for lawyers–it’s what we do, sell out to the highest bidder.”
See, you can’t hold that against them.
It’s part of the job.
Like stealing is part of being a theif . . .
Capn:
You’re a smart guy. You know full well how the legal profession works. You know full well that a lawyer is hired to be an advocate for his client’s interests. He does not have to agree with those interests.
All persons are entitled to representation, even those who I may disagree with. You understand that, don’t you?
You do, of course, but you prefer to take the “lawyer joke” cheap shot. While I don’t agree with you on much, I would have thought you were smarter – or better – than that.
I was apparantly wrong.
NO Kansas… they were both executed for their ACT… and the result is that Baby is killed in the execution… Do you know NOTHING of Biblical History???
Good grief!!!
Posted by: chas. | July 20, 2007 at 05:17 PM
You specifically pointed to that verse chas, no where else.
The fault is yours for providing an incomplete and unsatisfactory explanation for the event.
And it still doesn’t equate to abortion in any way, shape or manner. There were no surgical procedures involved in physically removing the fetus from the mother.
Killing of a pregnant woman is not considered an abortion as defined under today’s terms. At least not want little I know about the law and medicine.
Mel Gibson
Leave me out of your stuff, unless it is a direct quote from me.
You are saying things which I never said.
Most of the shit on this blog takes what I do say and arrives at some erroneous conclusion, which may suit their bigotry, but does not represent what I’ve said.
I’ve come to expect that from most of the Zionist shit that hangs around here, so I don’t need any from the other side.
Knock it off.
What’sa matter Ed? Your kindred spirit uncomfortable?
Ed,Do you condone killing an unborn child and at the same time condemn dropping a 1000lb bomb?
Ummm Kansas… Yoo hoo… New laws are out — that specifically allow murder charges for killing a pregnant woman… How about the Scott Peterson case not too long ago?? Convicted on TWO counts of murder… Not just one…
That VERSE includes the execution order, IF you understand Old Testament Biblical History… If you dont, then you can read it any way you want… just as you have done…
I am going to stop using Biblical references, when it comes to modern political/social understandings… They can be interpreted by many different people, in many different ways, for a myriad of reasons…
Yoo Hoo, killing an adult is still not the same thing as an abortion.
An abortion is a surgical procedure.
Or is your skull too thick to comprehend that.?
So, GMC, you’re saying that if I wanted to get Scooter Libby to file suit against Bush, he’d do it because that’s what he does, he’s a lawyer . . .
I don’t think so.
Lawyers do have some say over which cases and suits and lobbying they do, don’t they?
Anyway, like I say, we’re not going to vote for the guy under any circumstances. It’s your own party you’ve got to convince.
For instance, Scooter Libby represented Marc Rich, the same guy Clinton pardoned from his tax evasion rap.
Clinton got excoriated for that.
What a tangled web it all is . . .
Capn:
“Lawyers do have some say over which cases and suits and lobbying they do, don’t they?”
Certainly they do. And an attorney should refuse to represent a client who’s position is so repugnant to him that he could not zealously represent that position.
But it is equally wrong to assume that a lawyer who represents a client shares that client’s point of view. For obvious example, if I represent a defendant accused of rape, am I therefore in favor of rape, or of rapists “getting off?” Of course not.
Sometimes, a lawyer who works for a firm or large office, or perhaps one who’s been appointed by a court, has to advocate a position he/she may personally disagree with, but others (senior partners, bosses, clients) are making the policy decisions, as is their prerogative. You either do the work, or find other employment. And while there are many positions I may disagree with, there are relatively few that are SO repugnant that a colorable legal argument can’t be crafted, or a rational policy argument can’t be made for.
Frankly, this idea goes to one of the things I have so often objected to from so many writers on this blog, and what so many writers find so difficult to do: simply recognize that people of good conscience will disagree, sometimes deeply so. That does not make others who disagree with us less worthy of our respect. And as much as I hate to say it, Capn, you are one of the central violators of that basic tenet of civil behavior. Yea, I know, you’ll argue that someone else started it. I don’t care; we are all responsible for our own writing, despite what others may write. No, I don’t claim to be perfect; far from it. I’m probably guilty too, from time to time. You and I have been testy at times. And we all occasionally throw out a sarcastic shot.
But there are routinely levels of hostility here, on both “sides,” that have to make many readers just shake their heads and wonder what in he&% is the matter with those people.
I don’t think war criminals are worthy of a “side.”
When the United States killed 600 thousand innocent Iraqis (and quibble with the numbers if you must, let’s say it’s “only” 60 thousand) just because they happened to be living in a country whose leader we didn’t like, the government of the United States went over to the side of illegitimacy and illegality.
They have a “side” like Charles Manson, BTK, and the Carr Bros. had a “side.”
“I don’t think war criminals are worthy of a “side.”"
What? What are you smoking? Is there a point to that comment? Have you lost it that badly?