Welcome to PatsFans.com

The first casualty of the hollywood writers strike:Fred Thompson

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by jack, Jan 22, 2008.

  1. jack

    jack Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  2. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    [​IMG]

    well, perhaps naming an anti-zionist campaign manager, vowing to ban abortion across the board, and defending lobbying were clear indications this guy didn't have a shot...

    take care, Fred... we have some lovely parting gifts for you backstage... including the home version...
  3. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,624
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    #15 Jersey

    I'll probably skip his next "news" conference.
  4. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Wow, this sucks!
    Oh wait a minute...no it doesn't.

    When does Rudi Quit?
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2008
  5. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    QUIT?

    man...if he quits then the terrorists WIN.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2008
  6. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Since when did he ever want to ban abortion across the board? You keep reading those propoganda sites I see. Thompson wanted to put the states in charge of abortion. You know, in this country, it used to be that states had a certain autonomy about them.
  7. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Was Fred Thompson ever actually running...?
  8. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    running on empty
  9. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    gosh, i dunno....

    maybe HERE, on that propoganda site, CNN?

    DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) – Likely Republican White House hopeful Fred Thompson told CNN Friday that he would work to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected president,​
  10. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Agenda Boy, as I stated, you have no idea about his position on abortion. Hello, you'd need to overturn Roe V Wade in order to give states the right to decide whether or not they want abortion to be legal inside their borders. If you stick to your typical propoganda sites, and don't wander outside every once in a while, you'll never learn anything outside of what they want you to know. ;)





    Fred Thompson on Abortion
    Former Republican Senator (TN)






    Life begins at conception; abortion takes a life
    Q: You were endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee, but you oppose a constitutional ban on abortion. You say you'd like to see it the way it was before Roe vs. Wade, with the decision up to states. So let me ask you two yes or no questions. Do you believe that life begins at conception?
    A: Yes.

    Q: Do you believe that abortion is the taking of life?

    A: Yes.

    Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 "Choosing the President" interviews Nov 25, 2007

    Reverse Roe & return abortion to states, to allow SOME bans
    Q: You believe that abortion is the taking of life; so why leave it up to the states where, as you well know, before Roe vs. Wade, some states allowed abortion on demand?
    A: What the situation is now is as follows. Because of Roe vs. Wade, all states are restricted from passing rules that they otherwise would maybe like to pass with regard to this area. If you abolish Roe vs. Wade, you're going to allow every state to pass reasonable rules that they might see fit to pass. There hasn't been a serious effort to put forth a constitutional amendment because people knew that it wouldn't pass. What I've been talking about is directing our energy toward something that was halfway practical, something that might could get done. So now where we have no states with the option of doing anything about it, then we would have however many states wanted to. You could move from zero yard line, to the 60- or 70-yard line instead of standing pat, which is where we will remain if we don't abolish Roe vs. Wade.

    Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 "Choosing the President" interviews Nov 25, 2007

    Let states decide abortion with restrictions as they see fit
    Q: You said two weeks ago, "I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That's what freedom is all about."
    A: Exactly.

    Q: That is the essence of the pro-choice argument, not individual choice, but pro-choice for states.

    A: No, not really. How many pro-choice people say that they want to see the abolition of Roe vs. Wade? I don't know any. What I'm talking about is abolishing Roe vs. Wade [and allowing the abortion decision at the state level].

    Q: So even if you disagree with them, states could have abortion on demand.

    A: No, not abortion on demand. They could restrict. They would have the ability to restrict abortion more than they do now.

    Q: But pre-Roe vs. Wade, some states had abortion on demand.

    A: Well, they would not have anything under that situation that they don't have now. I mean, the gain would be on the pro-life side. I mean, they have Roe vs. Wade and all of the progeny from that already.

    Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 "Choosing the President" interviews Nov 25, 2007

    Heart swayed by sonogram of his unborn child
    [The abortion debate is] going to be ultimately won in the hearts and minds of people. I'm probably a pretty good example of that. Although my head and my legislative record's always been the same, when I saw that sonogram of my little now 4-year-old, it's changed my heart. It's changed the way I look at things. And I think life begins at conception. It was abstract to me before. I was a father earlier when I was very young. I was busy. One of the few advantages you have by getting a little bit older.
    Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 4, 2007

    No human Life Amendment; let states decide individually
    Q: The 2004 Republican Party platform says: "We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution." Could you run as a candidate on that platform?
    A: No.

    Q: You would not?

    A: No. That's been my position the entire time I've been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That's what freedom is all about. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days.

    Q: Each state would make their own abortion laws.

    A: Yeah. But to have an amendment going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go

    Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Nov 4, 2007

    Life begins at conception, but allow early abortions
    Q: You said in 1994 as a Senate candidate, "I'm not willing to support laws that prohibit early-term abortions. I'm not suddenly upon election as a senator going to know when life begins. It comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception. I don't know in my own mind if that is the case so I don't feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people." So you yourself don't know when life begins?
    A: No. I didn't know then.

    Q: You know now?

    A: My public position has always been the same. I've been 100% pro-life in every vote that I've ever cast.

    Q: Do you believe that life begins at conception, so abortion is the taking of a human life?

    A: Yes, I do.

    A: But you would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?

    A: I do not think that you can have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I've got to recognize that fact.


    http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Fred_Thompson_Abortion.htm
  11. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    He really blew an opportunity to take the nomination. He waited too long, and came in with too little hype. He thought he was in Tennesee in his pick up truck all over again.
  12. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    first, please don't make the mistake of suggesting i'm the one, between the two of us, who has a limited range of news sources... that would be beyond embarrassing for you... heck, i look at Drudge and Nat. Review every single day, in addition to the major media sources.... you look at ThinkProgress only when i present it to you....

    regardless, your semantics argument aside, the point was that his abortion position was among several aspects of his campaign that were unflattering to the voting public... right up there with praising lobbyists, and hiring Spencer Abraham... saying he believes abortion is the taking of human life, and that he would "work to overturn Roe v. Wade" didn't help...
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Nobody was going to buy his schtick, IMO
  14. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

    So otherwise, I was right, and you, as usual, had no idea what you were talking about. :p

    When will you learn that media outlets only take snippets of what people say so that they can frame it as they see fit. It fit's a certain agenda to put forth "work to overturn Roe v. Wade" without explaining, or even mentioning, what that means. You fell for their drivel, as you usually do, and quite honestly, I figured you'd have learned by now. [​IMG]
  15. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    look, RW... i can understand your unbridled man-crush for a no-nonsense old codger like Fred Thompson... aging, drives a gas-guzzling pickup, hot younger wife, "true" con man, falls asleep a lot, etc. ... so i can also understand your effort to turn the discussion into a straw-man semantics tit-for-tat regarding every detail of his abortion platform... (speaking of zzzzzzz)....

    the fact is, he's yet another one of those "life begins at conception" guys who seem to be falling by the wayside each passing month... i know quite enough about his position to deduce that it did him no favors, regardless of your smarmy "nah-nah" efforts to deflect to you vs. me...

    if he had his way, he'd scrap abortion... it's really very simple...

    now, i'll let you get back to preaching to us all how liberal you feel the mainstream media is... :rolleyes:
  16. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1


    Don't you have an inflatable doll to blow up? :p

    You really are Agenda Boy. That might be the most fitting nic I've ever given. Seriously, what part of what is being said here, can't you understand? This is why I ignore alot of your posts. You ask the same tired questions over, and over again, only to ignore the 100 answers people give you. You make statements that are false, and when you are proven to be incorrect, you simply repeat the same old statements, or decide that it's time to move the argument toward something other than what you originally said. I don't like any of the candidates that are running. What I do like about Thompson is the fact that he believes in states rights. Clearly you don't. That's your perogative. The man has said he wouldn't ever seek a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. What part of that can't you understand? I guess I shouldn't expect much from someone who looks at people in this forum as "opponents". It just goes to show that you're not here to discuss things, you're simply here to argue. So... [​IMG]

    :D
  17. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    BTW, so when does life begin PC?
  18. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Be happy for Fred, now he can stop having to get all dressed up and go be disinterested at debates just because his wife was making him. Right now he's got his fingers crossed hoping against hope that she doesn't make him accept VP if its offered.
  19. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    If McCain gets the nomination, Fred Thompson is likely to be the VP. McCain will need a southern conservative to balance out his ticket, and Thompson does fill that void. They're real good friends too.
  20. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Fred is going to hate that one. "Aw, come on Jeri, do I HAVE to? Can't I just sit around the house in my boxers smoking stogies like I used to?"

    Seriously though I think that's a really strong ticket for the general election, Fred to energize the base, McCain to appeal to independents and conservative dems. They'd at least have a shot against the Dem nominee, whoever it ends up being.
  21. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    I won't vote for him, but if McCain wins the nomination, I think he wins the White House. He'd be far more appealing to moderates and independents than either Obama, or Hillary. Of course, we're incredibly far from November, so it's merely an opinion.
  22. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Even if its McCain vs. Hillary you won't vote McCain? I can understand disagreeing with him on a bunch of issues, but I see her positions as even worse, and I'd rather vote for him than abstain from voting or writing in someone. I guess it all depends on how comfortable you are voting for the "less-bad" candidate, I can see how that is not an exciting option.
  23. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    I won't say never, but it's highly unlikely at this point. I just can't vote for someone who I have such disagreements with. Amnesty is a strict no-no for me. What's worse about his position on immigration, is that he wanted to let all the invaders who were here prior to January 1, 2007, stay. That's utterly ridiculous. The border is still swiss cheese, and this guy wants to let EVERYONE stay. Beyond that, how many more millions are going to make it through before it's sealed, if it's ever sealed at all. It was the most irresponsible, moronic piece of legislation I've seen in some time. These clowns knew it too, which is why they wanted to rush it through without any hearings. I'm sorry, I just can't vote for someone who not only thought it was a good idea, but who was the torch holder. To hear him say it isn't Amnesty bothers me too. I think it insults my intelligence, and the intelligence of so many who see it for what it is. Paying a fine and being able to stay is fukcing Amnesty John. The more I think about it the more I won't vote for him. I just got back from Florida with some friends, and one of my buddies who doesn't really follow politics, but votes, was asking me who I liked (he knows I follow this stuff). I told him I was undecided, and he went on about how he really likes McCain, and asked if I did. When I told him I respected him for his honesty, but that I couldn't vote for him because he pushed Amnesty, my buddy got pissed and crossed him off his list ASAP. How could someone be so out of touch, and so dillusional about immigration? This country is so fukced it's not funny. We're really doomed.
  24. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    what does this even mean?

    you ignore a lot of my posts because you A) agree with them fully, and can't stand to admit it openly, or B) have absolutely nothing to say, because you know there's no real excuse for the criminals in office ... the only time you comment is when you find some minor, perceived non sequitur that has little/nothing to do with the topic being discussed and try to pretend your opponent doesn't know what he's talking about... all while fronting that we're merely "discussing" and not adversary...

    any questions i've asked about 9/11 Truth, Plame-gate, the stolen 2000 election, etc., have yet to be answered with anything but delusion or Clinton deflection... i can assure you, i ignore no one... they've yet to be debunked, each one of them...

    you've just summed up the battle tactics of you and your constituents here... how ironic... anyhow, clue me in to a statement i've made that has been false... i mean, i'm sure i may have, inadvertantly, a time or two, but you're being very Foggish right now... i.e., overdramatic...

    clearly? i don't? based on what, exactly? or are you just making things up again based on what you feel?

    who said i didn't understand it? you're the one changing the argument... the fact remains, he's staunchly anti-abortion, and would work to overturn Roe-v.-Wade... that affected his poor performance.... what part of THAT don't you understand?

    anyone who supports, apologizes and lies for the Bush League and their own lies is my opponent regarding those topics... fortunately, they're a dying breed.... anyone who announces they were "against going into Iraq, but now that we're there, oh well" is my opponent... this is a debate forum, not a place to hold hands.... or would you like to "discuss" Iraq and "share ideas" about the fraudulent WoT?.... you have just as much of an agenda... and you often act like a boy.... the irony is thick...
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2008
  25. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    no where near the instant the sperm hits the egg, as some people would have everyone believe...
  26. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Weren't we going to see a kinder, gentler PC for the new year? Deep breaths PC, deep breaths, serenity now, serenity now...
  27. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    yes... unfortunately, it passed when people made unsolicited comments about my family, my income and the perceptions of my lifestyle rather than staying on topic as i had asked for... at that point, i began to speak back to them in a similar language they can easily understand...
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2008
  28. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    Ahhh the "states rights" argument that the right employs whenever it suits them and dismisses when it doesn't. What's that you say? Gay marriage in Massachusetts? They have no right to do this, we must pass a consitutional amendment banning this one.....

    What about the idea of abortion has anything to do with local v. federal government? What tangible reason is there that the states should decide this? Why would one state have a different set of human rights than another?

    Farm subsidies for different agrarian populations? leave it up to the states. A woman's right to choose? umm not so much, this one should be universal.
  29. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    But don't you get it? They teach Ad Hominem at the Conservative debating society. Can't argue with what Al Gore says? just attack his character. Disagree with Michael Moore but don't have any evidence? just call him fat and rich. Bill Clinton fires back? well then he's "Billy Blue Dress." Apparently you were unaware that it's logically sound to defeat others arguments by insulting them.
  30. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    There's nothing inconsistant with being against gay marriage in MA and against Roe v. Wade, that's the whole reason a constitutional ammendment would be needed to block gay marriage, because that's the only way to override the state's power! If the state has power to grant marriages to whomever they wish, should they also have the power to make laws restricting abortion? (My answer? I really don't know.) I think the big problem with Roe is that the definition of privacy intimated in the majority decision that prevents states from establishing antiabortion laws is questionable. There is still fierce debate over whether the constitution actually guarantees the ability to have an abortion as a right under the umbrella of privacy. That would be the reason to leave it to the individual states, that the decision was based on questionable definitions and rights laid out in the constitution. We already allow different states to have different human rights laws, don't we? What about the death penalty? The decision to allow that is made on a state by state basis, right? Or decisions to take children away from incompetent parents (DSS), those are state-run agencies, I think.

Share This Page