LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 In the tit for tat department about Kerry and his affair... Now the incorrigible Larry Flynt says he plans to market a Bush abortion story as genuine - in a book to be published this summer by Kensington Press. "This story has got to come out," the wheelchair-bound Hustler magazine honcho told the Daily News' Corky Siemaszko. "There's a lot of hypocrisy in the White House about this whole abortion issue." Flynt claimed that Bush arranged for the procedure in the early '70s. "I've talked to the woman's friends," Flynt said. "I've tracked down the doctor who did the abortion, I tracked down the Bush people who arranged for the abortion," Flynt said. "I got the story nailed." Flynt wouldn't disclose whether he plans to name the woman. Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie was unavailable for comment on Flynt's charges. Flynt's even got affidavits from the friends of the woman as well. He's actually had this since 2000 but family and friends of the woman have been afraid to come forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 abortion is completly wrong, but i dont trust hardley anything you say about bush anymore sideshow, just give it up dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 abortion is completly wrong, but i dont trust hardley anything you say about bush anymore sideshow, just give it up dude. I'm waiting for the exclusive report that Bush used to burn ants with a magnifying glass as a young boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I'm waiting for the exclusive report that Bush used to burn ants with a magnifying glass as a young boy. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I wouldn't be at all surprised. The man who strongly backed Viet Nam (*so long as he didn't have to go and fight*) is also the man who wants to send abortions back into the alleyway-coathanger days (*now that he has had his problem dispensed with*). Meanwhile John Ashcroft and the Department of Justice has subpoenaed the abortion medical records of hundreds of patients nationwide with no regard for patient privacy to try to justify the recently signed late term abortion ban. If you think Ashcroft doesn't belong in our medical records you can respond to the Act For Change action alert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 17, 2004 Author Share Posted February 17, 2004 420, I'm not bringing it up. The NY Daily News brought it up after Flynt made the announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 This story came out in 2000 as well, but no big media outlet besides CNN that originally had Flynt on wanted to run with it. CNN later "cleansed" the record, but in the original statement, Flynt named the girlfriend (maiden and married names) and the doctor performing the procedure, and the clinic it was performed at. He also noted that he already had signed affidavits from four of the woman's friends who could verify the account, but he was not going to publish the information because the woman was scared to come forward (she had been threatened byy the doctor and by a Bush friend with long-standing intelligence connections - see link proviede below). Some more interesting aspects are that it apparently happened ca 1970-1971, meaning: 1) the procedure was illegal in Texas, as this would have predated Roe V Wade (1973); 2) it happened while he was working on a Bush Sr. campaign, and it was apparently the campaign manager that set up the procedure. 30+ years ago, so who cares, right? Thing is it's just a tad hypocritical for him now to have already been elected president on a Pro-Life platform, to have signed lots of anti-aboution legislation in Texas, to have signed off on the partial-birth procedure ban, to be considering constitutional measures of overturning Row V Wade, to be eying future Supreme Court apointees with anti-abortion leanings, etc. here's a link with a hodgepoge of information from the original 2000 story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 “It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply. . . . Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected . . .” (Letter from Rep. Al Gore to a Constituent, 7/18/84) I don't know if this stuff about Bush is true or not. But I think it's a ridiculous arguement to say that Bush is not aloud to change his mind. A lot of people do. And...who knows the details. He may have been against it at the time and she went through with it anyway. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I don't know if this stuff about Bush is true or not. But I think it's a ridiculous arguement to say that Bush is not aloud to change his mind. A lot of people do. And...who knows the details. He may have been against it at the time and she went through with it anyway. Just a thought. If true.. him and a campaign friend set it up. Doesn't sound like he was against it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 This story came out in 2000 as well, but no big media outlet besides CNN that originally had Flynt on wanted to run with it. CNN later "cleansed" the record, but in the original statement, Flynt named the girlfriend (maiden and married names) and the doctor performing the procedure, and the clinic it was performed at. He also noted that he already had signed affidavits from four of the woman's friends who could verify the account, but he was not going to publish the information because the woman was scared to come forward (she had been threatened byy the doctor and by a Bush friend with long-standing intelligence connections - see link proviede below). Some more interesting aspects are that it apparently happened ca 1970-1971, meaning: 1) the procedure was illegal in Texas, as this would have predated Roe V Wade (1973); 2) it happened while he was working on a Bush Sr. campaign, and it was apparently the campaign manager that set up the procedure. 30+ years ago, so who cares, right? Thing is it's just a tad hypocritical for him now to have already been elected president on a Pro-Life platform, to have signed lots of anti-aboution legislation in Texas, to have signed off on the partial-birth procedure ban, to be considering constitutional measures of overturning Row V Wade, to be eying future Supreme Court apointees with anti-abortion leanings, etc. here's a link with a hodgepoge of information from the original 2000 story. If this is true, how is it hypocritical? He isn't accused of having a baby aborted while President or Governor, is he? One thing about having people's records so easily accessible is that people think once people take a position or stand that they are beholden to that position until they die. The woman at the center of Roe v. Wade is now anti-abortion. Is she a hypocrite or has she just exercised her right to change her mind? It was stated before about abortions being forced back to the back alley coathanger days. I've never understood this argument. The killing of unborn babies should continue to be legal because making it illegal will force women to go to great lengths to illegally abort their babies? Following that line of reasoning, purchasing, selling, and using illicit drugs should be made legal because the illegal drug world is dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 If it's not hypocritical.. it's at the very least a crime. Murder. As it was not legal back then. For the record.. I'm not for this discussion here. Too many differing opinions and I think this is a very personal matter which when opinions are questioned, has the potnetial to turn very nasty. JMO.. carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 The killing of unborn babies should continue to be legal because making it illegal will force women to go to great lengths to illegally abort their babies? Yes, absolutely...your disgusting turn of phrase notwithstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 If it's not hypocritical...it's at the very least a crime. Murder. As it was not legal back then. Oh it's hypocritical alright. Textbook case. And it's also a crime as, like it or not, the statute was still in place in Texas in 1971. Trying to intimidate the witness(es) is reprehensible if true. Frankly, nothing surprises me about the pathetic goon anymore. It's quite comical really. This great nation deserves Lincolns and FDRs and other giants to lead and represent it in the new millenium. Instead all it could muster is a soul-less incompetent abomination known as the Shrub. Such pity. :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 for the record, the language of "killing babies" is very wrong and inflammatory an embryo is an embryo and a fetus is a fetus and neither one is a baby (now the real baby killer could be considered to be G W Bush who ordered a war based on lies about immient threats and babies as well as children and pregnant women were indeed among the collateral damage in Iraq) abortion is a very serious medical procedure and the overheated rhetoricof baby killing does not help solve any problem and having said that Steff gives wise advice and on this subject I shall say no more because the passions do run so deep that it will just cause immense anger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 for the record, the language of "killing babies" is very wrong and inflammatory If there is one thing that I have learned in my 30 years on the planet is those who don't know, label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 for the record, the language of "killing babies" is very wrong and inflammatory an embryo is an embryo and a fetus is a fetus and neither one is a baby and having said that Steff gives wise advice and on this subject I shall say no more because the passions do run so deep that it will just cause immense anger Yet you add fuel.. Life starts at different times for different folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Life starts at different times for different folks. Thou shall Not Spilleth your Seed on the ground.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 I don't know if this stuff about Bush is true or not. But I think it's a ridiculous arguement to say that Bush is not aloud to change his mind. A lot of people do. And...who knows the details. He may have been against it at the time and she went through with it anyway. Just a thought. Certainly Bush is allowed to change his mind. In fact, I'd strongly urge hom to change his mind on a great many things. But, changing your mind involves owning up to past mistakes, or at least clarifying you have changed your stance o an issue. There is no humility here or in the (alleged) Alabama no-show. There is no contrite, 'Y'know what, I was young, I may not have made the right decisions, but I need to gain your trust so I'm fessing up." It's not that he really changed his mind. He just has two standards - the one he has lived by, the and one his self-righteous (sp?) public Presidential persona wants to force the rest of us to live by through constitutional amendments if necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 18, 2004 Author Share Posted February 18, 2004 If Bush changes his mind on abortion, etc. then as FlaSoxxJim said, he should own up to his mistakes instead of the "I commited no felonies since 1974." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 for the record, the language of "killing babies" is very wrong and inflammatory an embryo is an embryo and a fetus is a fetus and neither one is a baby (now the real baby killer could be considered to be G W Bush who ordered a war based on lies about immient threats and babies as well as children and pregnant women were indeed among the collateral damage in Iraq) abortion is a very serious medical procedure and the overheated rhetoricof baby killing does not help solve any problem and having said that Steff gives wise advice and on this subject I shall say no more because the passions do run so deep that it will just cause immense anger the language of "baby killer" maybe , well im sure is , inflammatory to many...but to many of us it is not "very wrong"... i love you borther and we find common ground on alot of issues but i guess abortion is one we will never see eye to eye on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Yes, absolutely...your disgusting turn of phrase notwithstanding. My disgusting turn of phrase?? What was disgusting about it? If you are referring to the mention of coat hangers, don't look at me. That was mentioned before by someone else. If that's not it, I can't imagine what you mean. Maybe you're more sensitive to normal words than me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 This great nation deserves Lincolns and FDRs and other giants to lead and represent it in the new millenium. Instead all it could muster is a soul-less incompetent abomination known as the Shrub. I'm surprised you'd like FDR. Cheating on poor Eleanor with many a lass. Hiding his polio from the American public. Accused by many of having advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor. Declaring war on Germany when the Nazis had done nothing to the United States. I'm sure Apu could give you many more grievances with good ol' Frankie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 I'm surprised you'd like FDR. Cheating on poor Eleanor with many a lass. Hiding his polio from the American public. Accused by many of having advanced knowledge of Pearl Harbor. Declaring war on Germany when the Nazis had done nothing to the United States. I'm sure Apu could give you many more grievances with good ol' Frankie. one point because I like you as a person and will not brawl with you - FDR asked for and the US Congress passed the declaration of war against Germany AFTER Germany declared war on the US. It is in all the history books! (speaking of accused by many of having advanced knowledge of an attack.. Gee Who could that be? BUlls*** to not know...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 FDR asked for and the US Congress passed the declaration of war against Germany AFTER Germany declared war on the US. OK, you got me there. See, I can admit when I'm wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 My disgusting turn of phrase?? What was disgusting about it? If you are referring to the mention of coat hangers, don't look at me No, I believe "disgusting" referred to that whole "baby killers" angle, Bob. Nice try. Cute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.