Quantcast

Fred Thompson Mega-Thread (Merged)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by R127, May 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    Jamie,

    This is hilarious. You make a threat but yet I am looking for a fight? You honestly thought you could bully? Stand up to a bully and they go away, you must not be used to that.

    Infringe yes, compromise no. (Nor would I). Your words Jamie, I comprehend them perfectly, you chose them poorly.

    That's your best way out of this, the smartest thing you've done tonight. ;)

    Good night.
     
  2. Jamie C.

    Jamie C. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,316
    Location:
    Tennessee... the top, middle part.
    I chose my words quite carefully... and they were read, and possibly understood, in and of themselves... but the thought behind them wasn't.

    The fact is, I don't agree with any "right to life". If there was one, then our animal shelters wouldn't be full, there would be no children starving anywhere in the world, and we wouldn't be putting the people we do in charge of running things.

    But this is still not a conversation for HERE.

    And that, you close-minded fool, is the fact of the matter, and my only "threat".

    We can't talk about this sort of thing here. It's not in the rules to do so.

    But still you and other push and persist, KNOWING the thread will be locked.

    And it's just plain stupid. :rolleyes:


    J.C.
     
  3. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Darn, that FRED THOMPSON IS A GREAT GUY, isn't he?

    (In a desperate attempt to get this thread back on track, and away from name calling and Ron Paulisms)
     
  4. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    Fred is a great guy and will be the next Rep Candidate, I hope.


    Funny, Jamie you say your piece then say don't talk about it, you'll shut the thread down. Just another attempt of control, just like the bullying attemtps you're foolish enough to expect to work.

    You believe in your right to protect and keep your life, and the right to take another's life if they infringe upon (your word) the life you don't even have the right to have? Ironic as heck.

    It's a shame you have so little appreciation for human life. Especially when there's such quick talk about taking another's.

    May GOD bless you.
     
  5. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    If you think our country is doing all the rights things right now then yes, Fred is the man.

    As far as I can tell, there isn't a single thing foreign or domestic that will change.
     
  6. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    You gotta love this one on Climate Change, even if you don't agree.

    Fred Thompson on CLIMATE CHANGE

    “Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. … NASA says the Martian South Pole’s ‘ice cap’ has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto. This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, nonsignatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their airconditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.






    Fred Thompson.......


    Fred Thompson on the Issues Video Please watch the video, these are just quick outtakes.


    SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

    “Marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don’t believe judges ought to come along and change that.”
    On civil unions: “I think that that ought to be left up to the states. I personally do not think that that is a good idea, but I believe in many of these cases where there’s real dispute in the country, these things are not going to be ever resolved.”

    GUN CONTROL

    “Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. … Whenever I’ve seen one of those “Gun-Free Zone” signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I’ve always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at.”

    IMMIGRATION

    “We’ve tried the ‘comprehensive’ route before to solve the illegal immigration problem. … Twenty-two years and millions of illegal immigrants later, that comprehensive plan hasn’t done what most Americans wanted it to do — secure America’s borders. Now Washington says the new ‘comprehensive’ plan will solve the problem that the last comprehensive plan didn’t. … We should scrap this ‘comprehensive’ immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders — or at least made great headway.”

    IRAQ

    “There’s going to be a day after Iraq. … If we leave there under bad circumstances, we’re going to have a haven down there for terrorists. The whole area, I’m afraid, will become nuclearized. The Sunni countries are looking at what Iran is doing. And if we can’t help with stability in that part of the world, they're going to help themselves, and they're going to go nuclear, in terms of weaponry and the ability to counteract what Iran's doing. The whole region is up for grabs.”

    TAXES

    “President John F. Kennedy was an astute proponent of tax cuts and the proposition that lower tax rates produce economic growth. Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan also understood the power of lower tax rates and managed to put through cuts that grew the U.S. economy like Kansas corn. Sadly, we just don’t seem able to keep that lesson learned.”

    ABORTION

    "I am pro-life. I have 100 percent voting record on the pro-life issues. … Intellectually, and politically, and from a policy standpoint, I've always voted that way."

    "I think the Supreme Court was absolutely right in the partial-birth abortion decision."
    May 1, Fox News

    "I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges. I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country."
     
  7. FeebMaster

    FeebMaster Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    275
    Another pro-gun dynamo.
     
  8. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
     
  9. PotatoJudge

    PotatoJudge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,332
    Location:
    Texas
    Hate to think that the goverment is the source of our rights. That would mean they have the power to take them away.

    He should have just stuck with "recognize" and left it at that.
     
  10. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    Probably would have been better wording. However, I seriously doubt he meant it in that way.
     
  11. PotatoJudge

    PotatoJudge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,332
    Location:
    Texas
    Yeah, having read his other 2A stuff he seems to get it. I just think it's important for people to say it right so that others really understand the concept of rights endowed by our creator. When people hear it both ways, and more often than not the wrong way, they tend to think of rights as things that can be taken away.
     
  12. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    I think he meant it the way he said it. He has always been big government and his congress presided over some of the largest expansions of government in the last 40 years. Now he suddenly saying let the states decide what kind of gun righs you can have? We already have that.

    The only difference between him and Bush is the gay marriage thing. Let the states decide? I don't see how that will work though. If two women marry in LA and relocate to Dallas there would be some issues.

    I would also like for Jamie C to explain this comment:

    ''And yeah, I'm used to dealing with "stupid". It comes from being a "Public Servant" for a while...

    Still want to continue(?)''
     
  13. Jamie C.

    Jamie C. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,316
    Location:
    Tennessee... the top, middle part.
    It's pretty simple, Titan6. I've spent a good portion of my time working with the public. A public that by and large seem to think the rules somehow don't apply to them. And in most instances, me stuck trying to explain to them that they do.

    Let me give you another example... one that doesn't have anything to do with work or a job, but reflects the mindset of far too many people:
    Several years ago, I got tired of having a certain group of people come beat on my door every spring and try to push their religious beliefs off on me. No matter how politely or rudely I expressed my desire to have them go away and not come back, they wouldn't have any of it. They seemed to think they had a right to be there at my door, spouting their views at me.

    So I posted a couple of "No Trespassing" signs, where they couldn't be missed.

    And every time I turn around, I still have to go out and remind these people that those signs do indeed apply to THEM. And it's just plain stupid. No other words for it.

    And so is getting involved in a "Right to Life" conversation/argument HERE.

    And as for "Still want to continue?"... well, a longer version of the question would be "Do you really want to have this conversation, knowing that in all likelihood it'll 1.) just piss people off, and 2.) get this thread locked?"

    I can only surmise that the answer is "yes", since we're still at it. :rolleyes:



    J.C.
     
  14. otcconan

    otcconan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    182
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    I like him. The only thing I dislike are his yes votes on two key government officials. Yes on Norman Mineta (the bonehead Transportation Secretary who eschewed profiling Arabs in airports in favor of frisking 90 year old grandmothers) and Madelaine Albright (what a wonderful Sec of State that was).

    But voting in favor of term limits, as well as the line-item veto (twice), very cool.
     
  15. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Jamie C- Good. I thought you were saying something else but I try hard not to jump to conclusions. I often find myself in such situations also. Often times here it more willful ignorance than stupidity.

    You might consider that people don't like being called stupid as well, even over the internet.

    Thompson is anti-abortion phrase it however you wish. The abortion question will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
     
  16. Jamie C.

    Jamie C. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,316
    Location:
    Tennessee... the top, middle part.
    Titan6, I wasn't calling a person "stupid", I was calling an action/choice "stupid".

    Now granted, sometimes it is difficult to separate the action from the person, since some people seem to make a hobby or career of it. However, all of us, no matter our I.Q., education, etc. are still guilty of "stupid" on occasion. And I refuse to bow to political correctness and call it anything but that: stupid.

    Anyway, I hope this clears it up for everybody.


    J.C.
     
  17. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Perhaps I'm naive, but what's so great about the line item veto? Will you still like it if Hillary gets elected?

    All of these new presidential powers sure are nifty... when you like the guy's views.
     
  18. silliman89

    silliman89 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    283
    Location:
    Virginia
    Glad you asked. It's simple; the line item veto can't be used to put things into a law, only to remove things.

    One of the biggest problems with our system of government is that congress represents people in certain geographical regions, rather than people in general. (Obviously this is simpler and more workable, but it's still a problem.) This means congressman normally spend most of their time trying to bring money back home. That's how they get reelected. This means that every bill gets padded with pork. This is how government grows, pork barrel spending.

    The only possible hope of shrinking government is by cutting it's funding. The only possible way to cut government spending is by giving the executive branch the tools to do so. That's because the President is the only elected official that represents the whole country, geographically. There's no geographical area of the country that the president is beholden to more than any other.

    In support of the merits of the line item veto, I point to the War Between the States. When the southern states seceded from the Union, largely because they felt the Federal government was suppressing states rights, they wrote a new constitution for their new country. They mostly copied the original Constitution. They made a few small changes, based upon their years of first hand experience, to prevent their new confederate government from becoming as oppressive as they saw the Federal government becoming. One of those changes was to give their president the line item veto.

    The line item veto is the original libertarian, small government, and pro-freedom position. The founding fathers just didn't think of it, but their grandchildren did.
     
  19. samtechlan

    samtechlan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    270
    Location:
    USA
    George Will on Thompson,

    "Although Thompson presents himself as a strict constitutionalist and an advocate of limited government, he voted for, and still supports, the McCain-Feingold law, which empowers the government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of speech about government."




    Will: Is Fred Thompson All Charm, No Substance?
    By George F. Will
    Newsweek
    June 18, 2007 issue - Tulip mania gripped Holland in the 1630s. Prices soared, speculation raged, bulbs promising especially exotic or intense colors became the objects of such frenzied bidding that some changed hands 10 times in a day. Then, suddenly, the spell was broken, the market crashed—prices plummeted in some cases to one one-hundredth of what they had been just days before. And when Reason was restored to her throne, no one could explain what the excitement had been about. Speaking of Fred Thompson ...

    Some say he is the Republicans' Rorschach test: They all see in him what they crave. Or he might be the Republicans' dot-com bubble, the result of restless political investors seeking value that the untutored eye might not discern and that might be difficult to quantify but which the investors are sure must be there, somewhere, somehow.

    One does not want to be unfair to Thompson, who may have hidden depths. But ask yourself this: If he did not look like a basset hound who had just read a sad story—say, "Old Yeller"—and if he did not talk like central casting's idea of the god Sincerity, would anyone think he ought to be entrusted with the nation's nuclear arsenal? He is an actor, and, as a Hollywood axiom says, the key to acting is sincerity—if you can fake that, you've got it made.

    This is, of course, all about another actor. Republicans have scrutinized the current crop of presidential candidates and succumbed to the psychosomatic disease Reagan Deprivation. It is, however, odd that many Republicans who advertise their admiration for Reagan are so ready to describe Thompson as Reaganesque because he ... what?

    Because he, too, is a Great Communicator? Reagan greatly communicated ideas and agendas. What Thompson enthusiasts are smitten by, so far, is his manner. His deep-fried Southernness bears a strong resemblance to the Southwesternness of, say, Midland, Texas, and the country may have had its fill of that flavor. Thompson, a longtime lawyer-lobbyist who will run as a Washington "outsider," lives inside the Beltway, but outside Washington, in McLean, Va.


    In their haste to anoint Thompson as another Reagan, the anointers are on the verge of endorsing what Reagan's disdainers have long argued—that Reagan was 99 percent charm and 1 percent substance. In 1968, when Reagan was 57, one of his disparagers, Norman Mailer, wrote that Reagan radiated a "very young, boyish, maybe thirteen or fourteen, freckles, cowlick, I-tripped-on-my-sneaker-lace aw shucks variety of confusion." This style of dismissal was common then, before Reagan spent another 14 successful years in demanding executive offices and before the publication of his letters and pre-presidential broadcasts. Since then, Reagan has undergone what Alistair Cooke, speaking of someone else, called "the four stages of the highbrow treatment: first, he was derided, then ignored, then accepted, then discovered." So far, Thompson is 99 percent charm.

    When the resolutely uncharming John McCain ran in 2000, only four of his Senate colleagues supported him. Thompson was one. Today Thompson is John McCain without McCain's heroism, Vesuvian temper and support for the current immigration legislation. Although Thompson presents himself as a strict constitutionalist and an advocate of limited government, he voted for, and still supports, the McCain-Feingold law, which empowers the government to regulate the quantity, content and timing of speech about government.

    Because this campaign started so early, it may be shrewd for Thompson to bide his time until his rivals seem stale, and then stride onstage. But once there, the latecomer should have some distinctive ideas he thinks will elevate the debate. In a recent speech, Thompson expressed a truly distinctive idea about immigration. Referring to the 1986 amnesty measure that Reagan signed into law, he said: "Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world."

    Kids, do not try to deconstruct that thought at home; this is a task for professionals. Thompson seemed to be saying that the suicidal maniacs besetting us are among us—are among the 12 million. And that although the maniacs are here, they want to kill innocents elsewhere ("around the world"), too.

    Well, Reagan, too, had his rhetorical pratfalls, and Thompson, a former prosecutor, must know how to sift evidence and formulate arguments. But as Thompson ambles toward running, he is burdened by a reputation for a less-than-strenuous approach to public life, and that opaque thought he voiced about immigration looks suspiciously symptomatic of a mind undisciplined by steady engagement with complexities. If so, a sound you may soon hear from the Thompson campaign may be the soft "pop" of a bursting bubble.

    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140623/site/newsweek/page/0/
     
  20. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    He's referring to terrorist.


    Here's his May 8th 2007 immigration interview:

     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2007
  21. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    silliman89, you didn't answer my question. You seem to enjoy the current line item veto power in the hands of the president, would you still like it in the hands of, say, Hillary?

    Lets take as an example the current bill that the NRA is backing in another thread that the dems want to put stricter controls on mental health records and NICS. One of the concessions the NRA got was that veterans, for one, would be able to petition to have their names cleared after being put into the system for alleged mental health problems.

    A Democrat president would be able to veto that part out and sign it. Also the part that says that the fed. government would never be able to charge for the check. Still sound good?

    One person should not have the power to chop parts here and there that they do not like. That part is taken care of at the congressional level, by the group.
     
  22. silliman89

    silliman89 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    283
    Location:
    Virginia
    Yes, I do support Hillary having the line item veto power. (I just don't support her being president in the first place. :) )

    You're not taking into account that congress would know the rules had changed. Deals like this wouldn't be made after the president had the line item veto, unless congress had enough support to override the veto.

    No one would put opposing stipulations in the same bill and call it a compromise, because everyone would know that the president would veto whichever lines they didn't agree with. Congress would be forced to pass bills that dealt with single issues, or were at least all on the same side of issues.

    Almost all the state governors have the line item veto. There's nothing dangerous about it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto
     
  23. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,845
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    You need to read the proposal. The Line Item Veto applies only to expenditures. The president can, under a Line Item Veto, disapprove the spending of certain funds, but cannot veto anything else without vetoing the whole bill.
     
  24. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    Yep, and that would be nice to have.
     
  25. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,845
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    The line item veto would do a lot of good things -- including allowing us to hold one guy responsible for over-spending.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice