<p>Do local Chapters vote on who to endorse? Or is it the central WashDC office that makes the decissions…just wondering</p>
<p>the plot thickens as it were:</p>
<p>[Pro-Corporate</a> Trumps Pro-Life, The Nation: Thompson Endorsement By National Right To Life Shows Abortion Isn’t Its Priority - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/14/opinion/main3500451.shtml]Pro-Corporate”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/14/opinion/main3500451.shtml)</p>
<p>The National Right to Life Committee is no longer best known in Washington as a social-issue group. Rather, the committee is best known as an organization that is in the forefront of opposing campaign finance reform and other moves that might limit the its ability and the ability of organizations like it to use corporate special-interest money for political purposes – and, of course, to maintain lavish offices in the tonier sections of Washington. </p>
<p>With aggressive lobbying on Capitol Hill, lawsuits at the federal and state levels and grassroots organizing around the country to oppose campaign finance reforms, the National Right to Life Committee has made itself the primary defender of corporate influence in politics. </p>
<p>[Campaign</a> Reform and Free Speech](<a href=“http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Free_Speech/index.html]Campaign”>http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Free_Speech/index.html)</p>
<p>citygirlsmom</p>
<p>Thanks! I know one woman who has recurrent doubts about her abortion (Down’s Syndrome) and many others who feel a sense of freedom. If the guys who are so self-righteous could imagine pregnancy, labor and delivery and a lifetime of parenting–often without help from the <em>fathers</em> maybe they’d feel differently. The righteousness with no experience bothers me.</p>
<p>your welcome…I am not embarrassed by my choice…it was what it was</p>
<p>If more women would actually share with each other, they may be suprised at the conversations they would have</p>
<p>I never regretted the decision…</p>
<p>Thank you, cgm.</p>
<p>I think every major life event can lead to “What if?” questions down the road. I sometimes wonder where I’d be today if I’d married my college boyfriend, if I’d gone into journalism instead of law, if my mother hadn’t walked away from the horrific car accident that should have killed her. I don’t regret any of my big decisions, but there were so many forks in the road that might have changed my life drastically, and they do occupy some space in my mind. It would be surprising if they didn’t.</p>
<p>I bow to CGM for having the courage to bring something intensely personal and private into the discussion. I don’t always agree with her but this earns my recognition.</p>
<p>The twists and turns a simple political thread can take on College Confidential provide a gentle reminder why one is best served to remain silent. How ones goes from planted answers to planned parenthood is as clear as a bottle of chinese ink, or as clear as the conscience of the conniving–and all-too-willing to serve the dark side to the deep end–staffers and their master. Apologies? How about some … on the spot firings? </p>
<p>Le Monde Diplomatique ran a story titled, "Une gauche endormie par l’hypocrisie imp</p>
<p>Yeah, xiggi, but we don’t remain silent do we? The “firstborns for breakfast” was rather amusing I must say.</p>
<p>From Post 100 .There’s been back and forth between the two organizations for years, which is why the deniability is ludicrous – it’s not even close to a secret. Who would believe it?</p>
<p>Where is the evidence to back this statement up?</p>
<p>This is specifically what I was talking about and easy accessible by google. I recall this being very big news. This is specifically what I meant by predatory. I’ve agreed with your premise through this whole thread and you have twisted my words and continued to stalk me even though I’ve asked you to leave me alone. Tell me AGAIN that it’s not personal.
"<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/abortion091499.htm">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/abortion091499.htm</a>"</p>
<p>I think it is very important to note here that Z has found one news story from 1999 showing that it was known as early as at least Sept. 14 1999 the Republican National Committee had given a large amount of money to the National Right to Life Committee in 1966. While this does not fall into the lots of evidence of public knowledge of the financial arrangement between these two organizations it does meet the request I made in my fist post on this subject which was do you have information that I dont that shows that this information was public </p>
<p>Z, thank you for finding and sharing this information with me.</p>
<p>In response to your request to, Tell me AGAIN that it’s not personal its not personal.</p>
<p>It is more important to note that I am one of a group of posters who has politely called to your attention your posting style, habit of pulling in information from other threads and further habit of baiting fellow cc members. You’ve been asked nicely to consider your posting style, but refuse to do so. Anyone on this thread who chooses to do so can search and see that, can search and see how big a deal that $650,000 was, and view the connection between the two entities. You have also shown that my uses of the words personal and predatory were perfectly appropriate. Other posters have used similar words or phrases to describe your posting style. I generally do not bring things in from other threads, but it needs to be made clear that this is a pattern of behavior.</p>
<p>. . . fail to disclose when the questions asked during supposedly spontaneous q-and-a encounters with “real voters” have actually been scripted by the campaign itself; they also don’t bother to disclose when post-debate TV commentary is being handled by “informal advisers” who are playing both sides of the field, commenting favorably on their candidate’s performance (and criticizing that of the other candidates) when they’re not busy sending out fund-raising emails on behalf of the campaign:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Questions</a> About Carville and CNN - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog](<a href=“http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/questions-about-carville-begala-and-cnn/]Questions”>Questions About Carville and CNN - The New York Times)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/politics/17cnn.html?ref=us[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/politics/17cnn.html?ref=us</a></p>
<p>Clinton has been caught using another planted Grinnell student:</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Caucusing Is Easy](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLxtP2UhSLY]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLxtP2UhSLY)</p>
<p>I want that burger.</p>
<p>Given how widely this thread has roamed (query: do all CC “political” threads ultimately wind up being about the exact same one, maybe two, or at most three things?), I suppose that it’s not too far afield - hey, at least it relates to Grinnell - to note that one of the many cool things about this school is their high-speed, run-and-shoot style of basketball, which has gotten them attention in places where one might not ordinarily expect to see a small, midwestern, bookish liberal arts college mentioned, like Sports Illustrated, for instance:</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>[SI.com</a> - Writers - Grant Wahl: Innovative coaches are hard to find these days, but here are 11 - Thursday December 18, 2003 2:40PM](<a href=“http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/grant_wahl/12/17/mailbag/index.html]SI.com”>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/grant_wahl/12/17/mailbag/index.html)</p>
<p>Yes, I’m not even interested in sports and I really want to see them play.</p>