TCUnation
social network for conservatives
Senator-Elect Scott Brown Supports Women’s ‘Right to Choose’
Washington (AP) - Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts says he opposes federal funding for abortions, but thinks women should have the right to choose whether to have one.
Brown tells ABC's "This Week" that he disagrees with his party's position that the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion should be overturned.
Brown says the abortion question is one that's best handled by a woman, her family and her doctor. He also says more effort needs to go into reducing the number of abortions in the U.S.
Brown has said the GOP shouldn't take his vote for granted on every issue. He says he's fiscally conservative but more moderate on social issues.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60770
.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Roger R. on -
Laura, your post above is the most honest, truth-to-power post I have ever seen on TCU. It was D*** Cheney, hell bent on carrying forward the power of the Executive Branch exercised from the Nixon Administration that gave the Bush Administration the "right" to grab power as it saw fit. Is it not “interesting” that the same cast of characters from the Bush Administration were in the Nixon Administration?
Now, we Conservatives are complaining about the Obama Administration that is simply continuing to grab even more power for the Executive Branch. This power grab just didn't happen overnight, it had a genesis, and I'm glad that we're finally talking about it's roots - openly and honestly.
Where were the conservatives when the Bush Administration needed to be reigned in? We just let it go because he was, supposedly, a "compassionate conservative."
We all know that Mr. Bush was no conservative. He expanded government, creating the department of Homeland Security, he was the "decider" and to heck with the other two branches of government.
If we are ever to get back to the roots of our Constitution, then we need to be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that we Americans allowed this to happen to our government without speaking up and holding our politicians feet to the fire.
Awesome!!!
. -
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Mott on -
Dave,
This is exactly the problem. There is a body of law for what to do with criminals and there is a body of law, captured in treaties, for nations fighting a war. There is no body of law for what to do about proxy wars conducted by miscreants and funded by rogue nations.
As a police matter, these terrorists have safe harbor in the rogue nations. They can scheme, recruit, and raise funds without being bothered. Intelligence, which is a key asset in our fight against this type of threat is nearly impossible to gather as they hide behind the sovereignty of a nation.
As a matter of war, the nation itself, though culpable, in a strict sense didn't commit an act of war. Then there is the entire matter of handling those captured on the battlefield as we've already seen.
In my view these areas of law need to be extended to cover the threat posed by those who would conspire to do harm to the US, while using a nation's sovereignty as a shield. Some of that has already happened but more needs to be done. -
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Eide on -
Paul, you say that rescue missions are war because it could cost life and treasury? It is not the same thing! If you are referring to Foreign Aid, please say so!!! It is not WAR!! You don't have to declare war to rescue people from a natural disaster. If you object to Foreign Aid and it's political implications, once again, I think you have a point. But it is not in any way related to a declaration of war!!!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Eide on
-
Roger, there are lots of us thinking about the past and the errors committed over the past 100 years. We are not here to bash each other or silence our members.
The truth is truth and I think that we are all striving to understand what that is by sharing information, reflecting on the past and understanding how to organize and get where we all want to be. There never will be a one minded approach to anything. That would look more like a drone like socialist nightmare wouldn't it?
The struggle here is to win over the now apparent terrifying outcome of the 2008 election.
I have seen some of the best people here on TCU go at it over a number of issues and still end up with a positive learning experience. That is the most honest outcome one can hope for!
Those who find themselves thrown out of the discussions on TCU are usually the few that always start the typical wild west saloon like shoot 'em up, knock 'em down brawls. It's usually done through a lack of respect for others and an unrelenting, exhausting, samo, samo onslaught of propaganda rhetoric to not only impose their own views often rudely, but to dismiss altogether those of others.
So, there has never been a lack of honesty here. Just a lack of tolerance for bullies. Keep on truckin'!!!! -
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce B. on -
The important issues to me are:
1. Jobs and the economy. This includes some method and means to make it attractive for employers to keep our manufacturing jobs here, not ship them overseas. So much stuff is manufactured in china and other slave labor countries. A walk around any of the big box stores, and looking at the labels, proves that something is very, very wrong. "Made in Gaboo-Gaboo" turns up entirely too much.
2. National security and defense.
3. Low Taxes and small, efficiently managed government.
I would also vote for Scott Brown again in a nanosecond. -
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Eide on
-
Ditto!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Charles T. Holliday on -
Boy was my inbox full when I got home! I appreciate a lively debate with sensable people. Laura, you have posted some of the smartest and most well thought out comments on this site and have earned my respect and my admiration. I think it's good that we can have a mature debate and maintain our respect for one another.
As I said earlier, I don't know if going into Iraq was the right move or not. To be perfectly honest, if I had been in the position to cast a vote I would have probably said no. We seemed to have Saddam held pretty much at bay, but I could have been wrong about that and what kind of problem could he pose now with Obama in the White House if he were still around. He wanted nukes more than the Iranians. He tried to assasinate a former American president and openly gave aide to terrorist. I feel safer with a commander en chief who the world knows will hit back and hit back hard if you tread on us. In the end, when we fired the first shot I came on board with my two cents worth and my full support. Right or wrong, in a matter of war I'm with our commander en chief and our troops and I think they should be in it to win.
As for as war only as a matter of defense, with all due respect then we should apologize to the Germans. They didn't attack us either. But our military bases have been attacked, our embassys have been attacked and our civilian planes have been brought down all by terroist so any attack on a terroist state or entity of any kind should be considered a matter of self defense at home or abroad.
On George W. Bush: I never saw the blundering idiot pertrayed by Letterman and the like. I'm not a political genius, but I've kept up with our politics since Reagan and when the president speaks I always want to hear what he has to say, even when Cliton was in office and I can tell you that George W. Bush was no idiot and he did NOT stumble over his words as they would have you think. He gave more speeches than Obama so of corse one could sifer thru all those speeches and make anyone that spends that much time behind the potium look like and idiot if they want to. Did you watch his speech before the UN when he made his case against Saddam.
I watched every word of it and as they moved the camera back and forth from Bush to the Iraqi delegation I am convinced that even the Iraqi's were convinced that the US should go to war with them and rid them of that mad man.
And finally, Bush did not lie about WMDs! He took intelligence collected by the CIA and presented it to leading members of congress, including Jim Kerry and was given the nod to attack. -
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Eide on
-
Bush was not an idiot. He was instrumental in paving the way to the political machine we are trying to reverse today. I think he did some good. I woke up to the fact that he was as progressive as Obama on some issues and that his view on border security and immigration was in stark contrast with his tough "defense" policies. Both GH Bush and son were NWO devotees. The North American Union became a reality while the American People slept. The Union of Canada, Mexico and the USA is a dream come true for three generations of the Bush dynasty. I wonder if any of us have pondered the consequences of this unConstitutional, treasonous act? One of them is the new currency called the Amero similar to the Euro which is destined to replace the once mighty dollar.
Thanks Charles for the compliment! I am flattered. I enjoy the debate because we are all good patriots seeking answers and solutions. I learn something every day! I just love everyone here because I know how much we care about finding a way out of this mess we're in!! -
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Eide on
-
And let's make sure we keep it!!!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Roger R. on
-
Laura, I am impressed that you've dared to go where others might have gone, or actually have gone, but whose posts have been deleted: The Bush Dynasty and NWO and the American Union.
Good on you for being brave enough to speak out to these un-Constitutional acts.
Since we've gone there: Let's add NAFTA to the mix
Regarding border security. I heard on local talk radio last night that "if" America really wanted to seal it's Mexican border it could - but the American people lack the political will to have it done. Certainly there are enough business lobbyists to make sure that cheap labor is available to those who want to keep their business costs down and more money floating down to the bottom line.
. -
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Eide on
-
Thanks Roger! I'm sorry your thread got hijacked in unpredictable issue switching debates. But this is the beauty of such thought provoking questions!
If we desire to return to Constitutional LAW, we have to ask ourselves some unpleasant and sometimes painful questions about the past. I am confident we are all motivated by the same values. We have lost our way somehow (well we know how), from the basics of what it means to be a free representative Constitutional Republic. Therein lies the root of all our values, morals and beliefs. If we go back and restore the guiding principles and the law we will be clearer on what we need to do to return to a sane, free and prosperous people. All the answers are in the document. The rest is often ill intentioned robbery and social engineering that has brought us to the dark place we are in right now. Keep on truckin'!!!! -
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
