Harold Ford Is Not Pro-Life

Written by Jack O'Reilly on November 1st, 2006

[Sorry, I accidentally deleted this post when I was trying to delete an inappropriate comment from a visitor]

Posted in |

18 Comments so far ↓

Nov
1
10:58
AM

John McCormack
In the original post Andrew said that Bob Corker isn’t pro-life as well. I responded saying that he would vote that way and I don’t care about his motivations.

Discuss.
Nov
1
11:24
AM

Michael Canup
Well John, that leaves open the prospect that he could be persuaded to change his vote in the future. If his motives are not principled, then it just more of the same in the GOP.
Nov
1
11:33
AM

John McCormack
So: 2 guys say their pro-life. One guy votes that way, the other guy doesn’t. Is it really a difficult choice?

Yes, he could be persuaded to change his vote. Everyone can change. Pat Toomey wasn’t always pro-life, but I trust that he says he believes what he believes and he’ll vote that way.
Nov
1
3:34
PM

anonymous
Inappropriate?! It’s what was stated in YOUR ad.
Nov
1
3:35
PM

anonymous
I thought you guys were champions of free speech, anyway. Or does the commentary on this website only run in one direction?
Nov
1
5:55
PM

Mike
What did you say? I missed it. Maybe you could paraphrase what you said?
Nov
1
7:45
PM

John McCormack
Dear anonymous coward: Free speech does not give you the right to come into someone else’s house and start cursing them out (especially while wearing a mask). But I suppose you haven’t read the first amendment. Yes, you have the legal right to say nasty, awful, degrading and disgusting things. That doesn’t mean you have the right to say them here. There’s something called civility and tastefulness. Are you ashamed of what you said? Is that why you don’t use your name?
Nov
1
11:43
PM

anonymous
Who the hell cares about my name? Do you want my address too? My social security number?

I’m not disputing your right under the US constitution to censor your blog as you wish, I just find it ironic that you claim to support the right to offensive speech.

In any case, I was actually making a substantive point — The article you cite is nonsense garbage in EXACTLY the same way as the ad I referenced. Do I need to be less subtle for you?
Nov
2
12:51
AM

Mike
“Who the hell cares about my name?”

We do. We use our real names here, and we stand by what we write. If you can’t step up to the plate and be upfront about who you are then it casts everything else you say in doubt.
Nov
2
1:12
AM

Andrew
I believe that the rules of civility in this space demand one use their real name, but at the same time I understand the lengthy tradition of pseudonymous political discourse in our republic so I can let it slide.

The problem is that there are a lot of people that post as “anonymous”, and it’s impossible to keep them straight. I think it’s better if you would just exercise some creativity and make up a good nickname for yourself if you won’t use your real name. If you don’t create a substantive identity for yourself then you’re just being a troll, and that just wastes everyone’s time.
Nov
2
1:17
AM

John McCormack
Anon: Actually because of the Patriot Act I already have your Social Security number, so don’t bother We’ve actually implanted a chip in your brain, and I know what you’re thinking right now.

And excuse me but what exactly was your “substantive” point in attacking someone’s physical appearance.

10 bucks if you can tell me what an ad hominem argument is. (And don’t worry, I know where to mail it

I believe the central point in the article is that Harold Ford says he’s pro-life but votes for amendments to gut pro-life bills, voting against the pro-life side 87% of the time according to the National Right to Life PAC. This includes voting against Laci and Connor’s Law. Now, would you like to address any of those points?
Nov
2
1:25
AM

Langley
Oh SNAP, you just got served anonymous!
Nov
2
10:51
AM

anonymous
Mr. McCormack — I’m finishing up a PhD in economics at a top 10 school and I took 4 years of Latin in high school. I can not only tell you what the cute little latin phrases that you learned in your high-school speech class mean, I can explain the grammatical construction.

The substantive point of my original post was the first sentence. The second sentence was a bit of commentary — Most pro-life women are very unattractive relative to pro-choice women. Maybe it’s endogenous selection because of all the imbreeding among fundie types, but I suspect that women who know they’re never going to get any are just projecting their anger that they’re never going to get the chance to make such a choice on the women who WILL have a chance to decide.
Nov
2
3:24
PM

Andrew
You obviously have a lot of insecurity issues, this is the second time you’ve brought up your totally irrelevant academic credentials.

You’ve crossed the line to being a complete troll, so I suggest that Alex ban you.
Nov
2
5:45
PM

Andrew
No one insulted your intelligence, from what I can see. You are the one who made a slanderous comment about the millions of women who stand up for human life in this country and around the world.
Nov
2
7:46
PM

anonymous
“I don’t think that post dignifies a response, other then [sic] damn you are one ignorant jerk”

Perhaps you DO know how to spell “irony”.
Nov
2
11:00
PM

anonymous
Dear Moderator,

Does anon2’s post get censored too? I never talked about pro-life women’s genitalia, just their simian-looking faces.
Nov
2
11:45
PM

Andrew
It’s all uncalled for, everyone just needs to keep it on the issues.

Spruce up your comments with

New comments are moderated before being shown * = required field

Save the GOP

Harold Ford Is Not Pro-Life

18 Comments so far ↓

Leave a Comment

November 2006
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Oct				Dec »
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30