Redstate

I forget the fancy term for it at the moment, but you can't go from If A, then B to assuming If not A, then not B.

Yes, people who favor the HLA care deeply about life issues, but you can't go from there to claim that people who do NOT favor the HLA do NOT care deeply about life issues.

That's a low attack, it's logically incoherent and not based in any facts other than your assertion that Fred believes other than what he's said he believes (and other than what his voting record demonstrates), and you should stop it.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Yes, people who favor the HLA care deeply about life issues, but you can't go from there to claim that people who do NOT favor the HLA do NOT care deeply about life issues.

Why not? The biconditional holds.

1. If one is pro-life, one would like to eliminate abortions.
2. HLA will eliminate abortions in America.
3. Thus, every pro-lifer should in principle support HLA.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the killing of persons under the age of 12 were legal in the state of New York. Shouldn't other states have the right to curb New York's grotesque actions through a constitutional amendment, in order to prevent this practice from spreading throughout the nation?

Some like to marginalize HLA as a "losing battle" or a "battle of the past." Frankly, I don't care one iota if it is a losing battle or a battle of the past, since this is about saving innocent human lives.

If you overturn Roe today, a number of states will outlaw or restrict abortion tomorrow (I just posted this, sorry). You can outlaw a chunk of abortions immediately and start work on the states still in conflict, or you can focus on getting Congress and 38 states to adopt an amendment that has gone nowhere for 25 years and will continue to go nowhere. Meanwhile, abortions can still be obtained in those states that would like to ban or restrict the procedure but cannot because Roe is still in place. Which position would cost more lives?

We should work on all of them. I see no reason for a pro-lifer to oppose HLA.

If you can get to the point where you can ban abortions without the HLA, and you can, why is the HLA vital except as a symbol? I don't care how I get the results, just that I get them.

One can be pessimistic about its chances but still support it for the sake of principle.

and getting our collective clock cleaned doing it, it will marginalize the pro-life movement. "Oh look how little support they've got!" Same goes for the FMA.

A good example would be how the feminists managed to completely marginalize themselves out of existence over the ERA.

The problem with both the HLA and the FMA is that the votes will not even be close. It won't represent even polling numbers which would be much more positive than the actual vote. "Principle" is fine, but it's not a suicide pact.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

There is a disparity between the polling numbers and the actual votes. This means that our representatives are out of touch with the masses. Pushing HLA could actually help to close that gap.

But I'm glad to know that you don't oppose HLA on the grounds of "federalism."

NOT close the gap. It will make the polling gap look more like the voting rep gap because the media will pick up the story and beat it to death.

Sorry, but for the forseeable future the HLA (and FMA) are losers and pushing them is very, very bad strategy.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

1. If one is pro-life, one would like to eliminate abortions.
2. Nuclear winter will eliminate abortions in America.
3. Thus, every pro-lifer should in principle support Nuclear winter.

HLA is a non-starter. Perhaps someday in the future it will be possible. We have a long way to go for that, and many steps to take in between.

More importantly, it is exceptionally noteworthy how little crime is defined by the constitution. There is a reason for that. The Federal government should have a very limited role in law-enforcement. Only in interstate or inter-nation crimes, and that doesn't mean crimes that "theoretically" could involve crossing a state line. That is a road we don't want to travel for very good reasons. The ends do not justify the means.

The consitution as originally conceived and intended lets state decide what occurs within those state borders. The big picture of that is that the U.S. is not a nation partitioned into states, but rather a coalition of states that came together and adopted a federal government to govern their interactions with each other and to allow for strength in international affairs. The founders did not intend for the federal government to intervene in state issues.
Federally banning abortions is no less a messing with that formula than federally creating a right to them was. The purpose is better, but that doesn't make it the right answer.
I have about as much credibility as pro-life as anyone, but I think a federal law is the wrong answer.

We have the 2nd amendment. Why not an amendment that gives everyone the right to be born? Do you agree that it is more important to have the right to be born than the right to own a gun?

The bill of rights is supposed to be a list of things the federal government can't take from you. For example your speech or your guns. Creating a right to be born would only mean the federal government can't prevent your birth, unless you want to make the bill of rights a restricter of citizens instead of government. Which brings us back to my comments about the wrong way to do things.

Anteater - I am 100% with you on getting rid of abortions. It is something that has touched my family, it is something I have spent time in the trenches for, but I have spent time in literal trenches defending the constitution and I can't see it weakened further than it already has been. 5 years ago I would probably have been arguing on your side of this, but I have a different perspective.

How about the 13th amendment?

What's wrong with an amendment outlawing abortion?

I am talking about the Bill of Rights, you are talking about the 13th Amendment.

You aren't going to get a constitutional amendment passed without a majority of citizens in several states that presently support abortion changing their minds. Overturn Roe, ban where you can, and work on the citizenry. If you succeed the citizens will either demand the legislature adopt a ban or elect one that will. An amendment would be unnecessary. Remember that this system worked just fine for all the years of the Republic before Roe. Why is it suddenly unacceptable and must be replaced by a constitutional amendment?

then the premise reduces the word pro-life to a superfluity, with "nuclear winter" negating its very essence.

"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."

-- Milton Friedman

on purpose. I was trying to illustrate that the logic of the previous post was not sufficient to prove the point.

"...Shouldn't other states have the right to curb New York's grotesque actions through a constitutional amendment, in order to prevent this practice from spreading throughout the nation?"

Reverse the argument: Suppose New York was the only State to prohibit abortion on demand. Shouldn't other States have the right to force New York to permit abortion?

My answer: No - the role of the Federal Government should be limited to matters of national defense, the legitimate regulation of interstate commerce, and other truely federal scope questions. Criminal law matters within the State are the perview of the State. Unless we are willing to accept the Federal Government overruling States on all matters of local scope, the limits of federal power must be diligently observed.

The logical negation of A ---> B is B' ---> A'

Have I said how much I loathe discrete mathematics?

-imwithfred-

==== 13 ====

I'm assuming by B' you mean not-B. If so, then that's actually valid and known to us humanities geeks as the modus tollens. I think what Neil's getting at is [A-->B, ergo A'-->B'], which is invalid and known as the fallacy of denying the antecedent. It probably has a fancier name in Latin, but I'm not geeky enough a humanist to know it. :)

(And it's never occurred to me that this stuff has anything to do with mathematics, but I guess it does. It would seem, then, that I didn't escape college without taking a single math course. Dang, that's a pretty serious hit to my humanities geek street cred.)

And yes, not-B is denoted as B' for brevity.

-imwithfred-

==== 13 ====

Heh. Well, at least you can take some solace in the fact that you computer geeks are employable. It turns out that the market for close readings of medieval Latin lyric poetry isn't quite as strong as you'd think. Personally, I blame the oil companies.

-imwithfred-

==== 13 ====

Roe was wrongly decided.
That's heart, soul and law!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

but I realize that the HLA is going nowhere, fast, and will most likely continue to go nowhere as far as the eye can see. To me, support for overturning Roe is far more important that supporting an amendment that I will not see adopted during my lifetime.

Abortion law in this country worked fine at the state level for 200 years before Roe. If you overturn Roe today you'd get a large number of states that would outlaw or heavily restrict abortion the next day. Then the movement has to focus on changing the hearts of the citizens in those states still in conflict. That is more than enough for me. By the way, it also seems to be good enough for the director of the National Right to Life Committee. Does that make it more palatable to you?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/11/national_right_to_life_praises.php

That is the most awesomest idea ever.

Henke, are you on here reading?!?! Flag this one for the campaign.

Fight On!

I would love to see this

In fact, a video message of the day would be a fine idea for any number of the candidates, but it does seem to be a medium that Fred excels in.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

http://www.fred08.com/Index.aspx

http://abcradionetworks.com/Blog.asp?id=15663&m=7&y=2007

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

.

Humor me a minute please,

You know what I think Fred should do?

Just to get this soc-con battle over and done? Have a one on one debate with Mike Huckabee for two hours. Whoever is the leader between them in the polls after two weeks remains in the race and the other drops out. Something like a loser leaves town match.

This way all the cheap shots can end and we have one Southern gent in the race, not two.

Fred is at about 17 on Rasmussen. Mike is about 13. Fred should win right? He should blow Huckabee out of the water. He's taller and has a real deep voice. He also has star quality.

Do you think Fred could fit that into his schedule? I'm thinking Huckabee would just love to accomodate the idea.

Better yet, whoever wins this little match up should agree that he would have the other as his VP! That way we don't have a pro-lifer like Mitt or Rudy on the ticket.

Thompson/Huckabee
Huckabee/Thompson

Yeah, I think I could live with either one. ;o)

Jim Tomasik

but can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
www.race42

Huckabee already challenged Thompson to a debate. Thompson backed out of it. I have been torn between the two. I really would have liked to see the debate too.

A number of blogs (this one included, I believe) were asked to submit a series of questions for Fred to answer. He's done a few, but they have been posted only sporadically. That would be a ready-made source of material for daily videos. Fred could also intersperse other videos based on his priorities or topics that arise during the campaign.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Really should try to win Iowa outright and instantly KO Romney.

Afterwards, Thompson can focus all of his heavy artillery against Giuliani in SC and FL.

wasn't going to fight the losing battles of the past.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
FRED08

This was a disturbing headline to see.

HTML Help for Red Staters

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

I was too busy with The Paper Chase

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
www.race42

He said that he would not support it.

Then he said "that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics." (i.e., he doesn't reject it now as a "losing battle of the past" - he's always rejected it)

Then he said "I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with." In other words, he thinks a HLA would be wrong.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
www.race42

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
www.race42

I missed that.

.

since his election to the Senate. It hasn't changed and it is what he said on Meet the Press:

1. Roe vs. Wade is bad law and bad medicine.
2. Roe needs to be overturned and responsibility for abortion
law returned to the states, where it was for 200 years.
3. Those states that want to ban or resttict abortion
immediately should do so.
4. Sanctions (criminal or civil) should be placed only on
providers.
5. The pro-life movement can only ban abortion in all the US by
convincing the majority of citizens in each state of the
moral correctness of the pro-life point of view.

Why does anyone think this is an inadequate position set?

HTML Help for Red Staters

Is in the same boat as McCain, ie, he doesn't have enough money to capitalize on his poll gains. Huckabee has peaked too soon and will head lower as people focus on his not so stellar economic stewardship of AR.

Romney is the bigger challenge, but is still very defeatable.

Huckabee has not peaked yet. He's still unknown to a lot of voters. He's at 8% nationally right now. I predict he'll be somewhere around 15% by the time the Iowa caucuses are held January 3rd. Maybe higher, maybe lower, but he hasn't come close to peaking. For that matter, neither has Romney peaked.

HTML Help for Red Staters

and made the same argument in a post on Erick's earlier (evil)article. You can run all the ads you want, but they'll do you no good if the candidate can't close the sale. Selecting a President for most peole is at least 50% emotion and Romney just doesn't connect with most people. The words I hear are too artifical and too calculating. Fred's goal in Iowa, I think, is to make a Romney win so narrow that it becomes a moral loss. I saw a psot by Jim Geraghty who was talking with Thompson's pollster. He made two points. First, the driving issue on the ground in Iowa seems to be immigration (see Fred's recent push on this -- BTW, he has to OWN it by January 3 and beat Romney and Huckabee repeatedly over the head with the positions they held as recently as last year). Second, that Romney was more vulnerable than he appeared to be.

Think alike. :)

I need Fred to say 2 things.
1. It's morning in America and
2. I want to be President.

On principle Fred is as close to pure conservative as we've had in a while. Everyone on the conservative/republican side is just waiting for that optimistic vision to emerge. The America rocks speech. As soon a Fred gives it he wins.

I like Fred because he wants to give me back my power and I welcome it. I can accept the responsibility. I want to convice others that all life is sacred. I want my state to decide on what marriage is. The longer we look to power in Washington to make things right the less of a stake in America we will all feel. Federalism is ultimately about FREE WILL. Free will and Jesus saved me so I'm kinda partial to Fred's viewpoint.