Skip to comments.Fred Thompson Is Finished
Posted on 11/07/2007 7:41:35 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
On the matter of Terri Schiavos right to life, which occupied the attention of the media and Congress in 2005, Thompson called that a family decision, in consultation with their doctor, and the federal government should not be involved. Thompson added, the less government the better. ...
In the case of Terri Schiavo, a severely disabled person, there was a family dispute. Her estranged husband wanted her to die and he eventually succeeded in starving her to death. Her parents had wanted her to live. ...
There was no moral justification for killing Terri because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn. The morally correct course of action would have been to let her family take care of her. Nobody would have been harmed by that.
Meet the Press host Tim Russert brought up the death of Thompsons daughter, who reportedly suffered a brain injury and a heart attack after an accidental overdose of prescription drugs. Apparently Thompson and members of his family made some decisions affecting her life and death. Thompson described it as an end-of-life issue.
Bobby Schindler says he doesnt know what the circumstances precisely were in that case and that he sympathizes with what Thompson went through. However, he says that it is not comparable at all to his sisters case.
What no one is recognizing, he told me, is that my sisters case was not an end-of-life issue. She was simply and merely disabled. Terri wasnt dying. She was only being sustained by food and water. She had no terminal illness. She wasnt on any machines. All she needed was a wheelchair and she could have been taken anywhere. She didnt even need to be confined to a bed.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
I’m as pro-life as they come, and I don’t get how being for overturning Roe v. Wade counts as “pro-choice”.
If you’re insisting that the only possible legitimate position is to be for an immediate federal banning of abortion in all 50 states, then enjoy having it be legal up until the moment of birth for the rest of your life.
The -only- way we’re ever going to get there is if it goes back to the states first by overturning Roe, then convincing enough states (two thirds) to make it illegal so that passing a constitutional amendment on the issue becomes possible.
That’s not all going to happen in 4 years. Getting Roe overturned is the next step, and if a candidate is willing to do that (as Fred is), that’s the most we can expect out of -any- candidate for the time being.
The Declaration of Independence states the ideals of the founders. It has no force of law.
That’s the shabbiest attempt at a photoshop I’ve ever seen. You should leave it to the folks with skills.
He’s not “acting” at all. While the rest of the RINOs are falling all over themselves lying their asses off about their records and what they intend to do, Fred’s just being Fred. It’s refreshing for a change. That’s why the media fears him.
For you older people: that is what the headlines of the paper said about Harry Truman. LOL he showed them the next morning.
That bad photoshop is almost as pathetic as Precious Willard’s candidacy.
Lying about Fred’s position, again, just might get you suspended, again.
“I believe the Democrat candidate will win the election because the Demcrats are happier with their candidates”
If that’s the case, and I don’t agree it is either your assertion that the Dems. will win or that they’re happier with their candidates, then it’s time for our side to get happy and fast, or they’re going to be getting a big dose of unhappy when an extremist Hillary White House and an extremist Democratic Congress are busy rubber stamping one another’s far left wing nuttery.
James Dobson might consider that as he throws around a lot of threats of running 3rd party alternatives he knows he’ll never have the money or votes to get into the White House, but who would be the Democrats’ fondest wish in ensuring the GOP/conservative vote is split which will acrue to Hillary’s benefit. And how many conservative judges will Dobson be getting then, and how will his goal of advancing the ball on an eventual abortion ban be served by that? If anything, it will be set back by a half century or more.
We need to stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good in our voting decisions and get over our childish fantasies of there being another Reagan out there who were just being denied. No one can seem to name who this mythical candidate is. And the constant comparisons and demands for a Reagan and dammit I’m just not going to be happy without one is pure foolishness. A guy like Reagan comes along maybe once every generation. So let’s get over the fact we don’t have the incarnation of Reagan or even a perfect candidate who agrees with everything we believe in 1000% and get out and work to get the GOP candidate, whoever that is, into the White House before we get a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress giving us 1000% of what we don’t agree with.
Time for conservatives to grow up and stop stamping their feet when they don’t get everything perfectly their way. We’re acting like petulant children, not smart, thoughtful, pragmatic and wise adults who realize in life sometimes you have to compromise on a few things to get a lot of other things you do want and prevent a lot of things you don’t, i.e. Democrats having total control over the government including having total control, and no checks or balances, over the judicial nominating process. How happy will these currently unhappy conservatives be then?
And maybe when you’re pragmatic, put away absolutism and stop insisting on having everything your way and accept less than a full plate realizing you can’t always have your way in a large and diverse organization like a political party, maybe in the end you’ll just be surprised at how much you are receiving and how filled up you really are and you’ll be pleasantly surprised, instead of always expecting the worst when you have to compromise just a little.
"you cant have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, were going to put them in jail to do that. I just dont think that thats the right thing to do." - Fred Thompson
&uotWhen the Declaration of Independence states — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...; — and that is the beginning of our country’s founding documents, of which the Constitution implements the particulars of how we’re to be governed, in order to protect these stated unalienable rights — that means anyone who minimizes the government’s duty to protect that very thing stated in our founding documents is not to be trusted at all. So, he’s “out the window” as far as I’m concerned...
The Declaration states the goals of the founders.
The Constitution tells us how to achieve it and sets the laws...and based on that, Fred Thompson is correct.
Who are you supporting?
So who were you before you were banned?
He did get to come back awfully quickly, didn’t he?
Ever heard of “unalienable rights” or something like that...
I listen to radio at work and it's sort of like Rudy talk all day.
I've noticed this. Are the Clintons behind making Rudy the one in the media now. We have seen this before.
Yes, too bad it is not the law!
Sorry, but a liar is somebody who says they’re pro-life, but doesn’t want abortion to be a crime.
YOU are the liar. You have demonstrated it all day, up and down.
I’m waiting to see what good candidate rises to the top. I haven’t seen anyone yet...
BUT, it’s quite easy to see who is *eliminated* — because they so easily eliminate themselves, with this current crop of so-called candidates (unfortunately)...
Unfortunately, that process will never be allowed to take place. Too many special interests will keep thier liberals in line to have an Amendment pass.
The process of overturning R v W with good judges on the SCOTUS and returning the issue to the state is the lawful and faster path to resiolution.
The proper case in front of SCOTUS to overturn RvW, stifles the issue and returns it to the state law in place BEFORE RvW was instituted. That means more babies will not be aborted.
That gives the PEOPLE the opportunity to vote on it, and the pro-life groups can garner more LOCAL control over the vote than they can in the FEDERAL system.
Any other push Federally is a waste of time. It is far easier to modify existing STATE law over a period of time than it is to make new or change any Federal law.
This simpole fundamental of State vs Federal control is lost on too many people.
There are higher laws than the laws of men.
When I married my husband, I gave him the right to make end of life decisions for me, if I am unable.
I CHOSE him. The rest of you can stay out of it. I do not want my parents, FReepers, or the State second guessing MY decision.
Michael may very well have been responsible for Terri's condition. But it could not be proven. That is a terrible shame, but the world is an imperfect place.
If you have someone that wants to put young girls and their parents in jail,etc. Who is it and where is the quote. That they are going to do that.
You said — “There is nothing in the Constitution which requires states to make murder a crime.”
Whatever happened to — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... “
LOL! You must have misplace that somewhere in your pile of papers....
Why would you assume I was banned?
So where did Fred say he ‘doesnt want abortion to be a crime.’ I take it that you want the millions of women who have had abortions to go to prison? If that is what you want, you have no chance at all of ever seeing that happen.
I'm confused, I know it's late and all.
Where does that appear in the Constitution?
Because you post like a veteran Freeper, and have been a member for 3 days.
The Constitution is the document for that newly-formed government to protect those rights and to put the force of law to it...
My, my, you sure have gotten things upside-down... LOL!
Not in our courts.
The Constitution already forbids ex post facto laws, so of course nobody has proposed prosecuting women who had abortions while it was legal. The pro-life movement is about making abortion illegal, and enforcing the law against any who break it once the law has been changed.
“Because you post like a veteran Freeper, and have been a member for 3 days.”
I’ve just posted on a lot of different blogs and political sites, including Politico and on Hannity’s boards among others, so it’s not exactly new to me. In addition, I write a lot of letters to the editors, debate politics in chatrooms and via e-mail with others.
Announcement nay be premature.
I have given up trying to reason with people who are fixated on the loony notion that the Declaration of Independence is a jurisprudential document in our legal system.
In fact, the Declaration ranks somewhere below the Federalist Papers.
While the Declaration of Independence is unquestionably the most eloquent statement of the basis for human freedom ever penned, it’s not the law.
I said that there nothing in the Constitution that requires the states to make murder illegal. The Declaration of Independence, which you quoted is NOT in the Constitution and is a legal nullity.
New character name for the elections. Not necessarily a return banned player.
And the day that happens there will be a medical ship just off the coast in international water.
It’s not right when the government is not supporting the founding documents of this country — when it comes to the unalienable rights, which includes life. That’s so fundamental that it comes within the first few sentences ever uttered by this government of the United States.
No amount of weaseling around will get out of that fact that this is a right that no government can take away (although they may attempt to; it’s just not their right to do so and it has to be fought against when it’s done). To act negligently and not act to protect life is taking that life, when it’s the government’s duty to do so, as our founding documents state (the whole purpose of forming this new governments, along with other grievances).
As far as who I’m supporting — I’m waiting to see what good candidate the Republican Party produces that I can support. Let me know when they do that. I’ve been looking...
What percent of what I want should I “settle” for? I’ll put up some numbers by way of example.
Giuliani 10 (fought tax cuts, anti-life, gay rights, anti-2nd...)
McCain 30 (but he is plain crazy.)
Romney 30 (I don’t believe he has changed his positions from when he campaigned in MA.)
Huckabee 35 (pro-tax, pro-illegal immmigration, nanny stater)
Thompson 90 (CFR - he apologized for being wrong about it. Impeachment - he voted for/against based upon the legal definitions and the evidence, not on the article that most agreed had the best chance of convicting.)
Hunter 90 (I just cannot give him 100 until he shows more appeal.)
Why should I vote for the under 50% candidates and weaken the party?
With all due respect sir, I don’t think any candidate will be up to your standards except Jesus Christ Himself and He’s not running last time I checked.
We have to consider the net effect a potential President has...and that is a function of policy AND electability.
Demonstrably false. The Declaration of Independence was passed by the Third Continental Congress, and the government of the congress was the Articles of Confederation. That government was overthrown by the Constitutuinal Convention with the state governments, about a dozen years after the Declaration.
While the Declaration of Independence is unquestionably the most eloquent statement of the basis for human freedom ever penned, its not the law.
It falls somewhere in the old statement that you can lead a mule to water but you cannot make him drink.
I didn’t make it. But I think it’s perfect.
If the founding documents are not adhered to, just as the original founding fathers found it necessary to form a new government to protect those unalienable rights, so too may other people in this present day and age find it necessary to do whatever is necessary to protect those same God-given unalienable rights which our country was founded to protect.
That’s just nonsense. FRed has a 100% pro-life record. Go FRed, GO!!
I can guarantee you one thing - If the election comes down between a New York Mayor against a New York Senator, I will not vote at all. I've lived there. And I will tell you another thing - I voted for Schwartezennegar here and after the fact found out he didn't campaign for ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN last year.
Those days of loyalty ended just about a year ago for me.
So? are you leaning toward a candidate? Republican? or Dem?
Or will you sit this out? and cast your fate to the wind?