Video: Jeri would make a better first lady than Billy Jeff, says Fred
posted at 4:12 pm on September 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Via our old pal Ian Schwartz, now putting his nose to the grindstone for some guy named Breitbart. Fred’s lifting Mitt’s line here, although who can blame him? Calling Billy Jeff effeminate in front of the NRA is one notch below racking an M-16 and squeezing off a few rounds on the crowd-please-o-meter. The irony is, if the rumors are to be believed, the Clenis is the one southern politician in America with more derring-do among the ladies than ol’ Fred.
This isn’t the only recent campaign event at which he’s paid Jeri some attention, either. See the beginning of the second clip for that. Exit question: Shouldn’t she do a Vent interview with MM? It’d be a friendly audience, it’d get lots of grassroots play, and it’d be a nice introduction to the base via another woman who’s well respected by conservatives. No brainer, right?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Wow, Fred is so pathetic he’s stealing other people’s material already. Stay Home in Orangeburg Tennessee Fred, we don’t need a choice between a socialist fraud and a blue-blood washington insider fraud.
See you at the debate if ya have the stomache, Fred.
BKennedy on September 21, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Right, no brainer. Please Mrs Thompson, give Michelle a sit down on the Vent.
CrimsonFisted on September 21, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Works for me. And yes, Jeri would make a much nicer, um, first lady that ol Billy Jeff…
jdawg on September 21, 2007 at 4:26 PM
God I love that guy.
Fred Thompson is the man.
msipes on September 21, 2007 at 4:28 PM
I have to admit I’ve wondered what would happen during a state visit when the other head of state is with Hillary and his wife is being “entertained” by Bill. What could go wrong?
trubble on September 21, 2007 at 4:30 PM
A HANK SNOW REFERENCE.
Just at the 25:00 mark counting down. It’s self-conscious enough that it had to be deliberate.
Whoa, he’s good.
see-dubya on September 21, 2007 at 4:32 PM
P.S. If he knows what’s good for him, Fred’s going to be scared of sitting down for an interview with Michelle. Any man would. She’s not going to let him waffle on Terri Schiavo questions.
see-dubya on September 21, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Heh. Wonder if he’s going to be the one to pick the china?
jdawg on September 21, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Let’s see- Fred was there and rocked the house, Rudy was there with his staged phone call, McCain was there treading water…
…but where’s Mitt? Couldn’t be bothered to show up in person? Perhaps he’s too busy hunting, being as how he said he’s “hunted all his life” and a gun owner.
Oh, that’s right- he lied about both those things. Apparently he didn’t want to have to answer for his enthusiastic support for another Clinton gun ban and his previous statements distancing himself from the NRA.
I guess we shouldn’t worry- give Mitt a little time and he’ll take both sides of the gun control issue.
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 4:36 PM
:)
Ian on September 21, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Yeah, an opportunistic blue-state gun grabbing fraud is definitely what we need.
Maybe by the time the next debate comes around Mitt (or more accurately, his handlers) will have an opinion on whether the surge is working or not.
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Looks like Fred got his campaign decoration from Jeopardy. I’ll take “prosperity” for $200, Fred.
Bigfoot on September 21, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Perfect! Now I get to report on how things went at one of Fred’s campaign stops in San Antonio.
His speech was a condensed version of the one he gave in Tennessee in clip#2. Since he spoke to a much more intimate group, he never raised his voice, so it sounded rather like a friend just chatting with you. In person, he comes across as someone who is supremely comfortable – with himself, with us, and with his conservative vision.
Here are some of the things he said:
• Went through his planks of Security, Prosperity, and Unity.
• Said he is very concerned for the direction of our country, and its bankruptcy for the next generations
• Plans to have serious conversations about serious issues
• Spent some time on Federalism: “Not every answer is found in Washington D.C.” Rule of law, market economy, and trade.
• Wants better energy policy, quoting Churchhill: “Americans will always do the right thing… after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.”
• Pointedly mentioned how the Alternative Minimum Tax was originally designed to target a very small number of people, and now snares multitudes.
Quips:
“My philosophy doesn’t depend on geography.”
“I didn’t start running as a high school junior, as some people have.”
The event was hosted by, among others, our Attorney General Greg Abbott, who will probably be governor of Texas one day.
Everybody there was smiling and palpably excited by Fred’s candidacy – including the press outside.
And I have been saving the best for last. Jeri Thompson herself walked through that room, visiting every table, waiting until she had made eye contact with every single individual, and shaken hands with every single individual. Ladies and gentlemen, this woman is a knockout, and I don’t mean just her looks. She is gracious, poised, calm, and completely lacking in “airs”.
Fred and his wife are utterly authentic, right on message, and I am proud to support Fred’s candidacy. Count me as an official Fred!Head.
RushBaby on September 21, 2007 at 4:45 PM
At least Mitt is going to show up. Where will Fred be, not taking a stance on anything? Oh sure, he can regurgitate a stump speech 1,000 times. I’ve already heard several statements he made in that event already here at HA.
Fred is an inferior Bush II. The left can now nail him with “Cowboy Diplomacy” due to his recent inanities regarding Armageddonjad.
Speaking of handlers, it would appear that all of Fred’s events are “controlled, well scripted” ones because Fred has been deplorable at speaking off the cuff. Oh sure, he loves federalism in the abstract, but nothing in his actual storied history shows support for anything more than the Washington status quo.
Terry Shiavo? Fred will get back to you on that, he was in a cave when it happened.
Preserving the Everglades? Oh, sorry Floridian residents, I haven’t thought about any issue dear to you at all, but vote for me!
Truth runs in the Thompson family? More like Status Quo Washington Pandering and Fraud.
BKennedy on September 21, 2007 at 4:50 PM
“Our rights don’t come from Government, they come from God”.
That’s one of the few times Fred’s mentioned God, and it’s a crucial one.
see-dubya on September 21, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Pure, unadulterated crap.
Allahpundit on September 21, 2007 at 4:54 PM
“Politicians are busy…spending the birthrights of future generations…”
-Fred Thompson (first video above).
“it might be time to revisit the long-standing practice — one prescribed in the 14th Amendment — of granting citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil.”
-Orlando Sentinel, on a Thompson Campaign Speech.
Apparently, if it were up to Fred, there would be no “birthright of future generations.”
Big S on September 21, 2007 at 4:57 PM
see-dubya on September 21, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Yeah, he also owned slaves. He wasn’t always right. Get over it.
Allahpundit on September 21, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Umm… saying you don’t know enough about the specifics of a particular issue is “pandering” or somehow being dishonest instead of just telling people what you know they want to hear? Alrighty then.
As far as his record on federalism, his Senate career, which included votes that went against the “status quo” based on his federalist ideals demonstrate that- as usual- you don’t have a clue
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Or instead you could put the quote in context to get what he was talking about- ending the practice of the illegal alien “anchor baby”.
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Okay…remind me where rights come from then?
see-dubya on September 21, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 5:02 PM
The context doesn’t matter. It’s still ending the “birthright of future generations.”
Big S on September 21, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Care to share with us which other parts of the Declaration of Independance were wrong?
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 5:04 PM
McCain-Feingold(-Thompson). The Heavyweight Federalist Bill of the world, one for which Fred fought for on his life to get passed. It was in that moment that Fred knew he had to put all his blood and sweat into it! Right to Life? Not important enough. Second Amendment? “Pfft!” To be a true federalist and really stop federal regulation, you must vastly increase it first!
Oh sure, Fred can say “I mispoke” now, but the fact is he never put any of his considerable girth behind anything else in the Senate. He just coasted along letting Frist do the real gruntwork.
BKennedy on September 21, 2007 at 5:05 PM
The consent of the governed? Rights exist only to the extent that they’re enforceable. God doesn’t enforce rights; only the government does.
Allahpundit on September 21, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Is there any other aspect of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution that you would arbitrarily like for us to get over?
samuelrylander on September 21, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Dang, Hollowpoint. Beat me to it.
samuelrylander on September 21, 2007 at 5:13 PM
This staged events are for the brain dead groupies and the desperate. Once Fred has to stand on his own, he will crumble like the house of cards he is. That is the reason he fears the debates. Oh, except for the debate that’s been canceled. They were sure to confirm for that one. He’ll get the questions about lobbying for a dictator, funneling cash to his son, and giving legal advice to terrorists, and thet’ll be all she wrote. His favorables are dropping like a stone while Mitt’s are rising. So what does Fred do? Drag the wife out. I wonder if he was as proud when he was man whoring it up all over Washington?
csdeven on September 21, 2007 at 5:14 PM
The context matters when it shows you to be dishonest:
I guess he is in favor of ending the birthright of “future generations” of illegal immigrants. Is that what you meant? You disagree?
If not, congratulations on joining the likes of Maureen Dowd in dishonestly taking quotes out of context to make them appear to say something they are not.
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Dudes and Dudettes,
The Declaration was written by a man; it shouldn’t be taken as a religious text. It simply means that there are certain rights that the government should treat certain rights as if they were endowed by the Creator. It’s a philosophy of government, not the Truth.
Big S on September 21, 2007 at 5:19 PM
I don’t think the Federalist Papers really support that–they seem interested in defending rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
I don’t think my right not to be killed unjustly ceases if I’m in Iran or wherever. If they want to hang me–or anyone–for being a Christian, that’s still a violation of that person’s rights. Governments ought to enforce rights, and it is a failure of government when they don’t.
Don’t agree; I enforce my own property rights all the time by locking my car and challenging bogus charges on my credit card bill. I enforce my right to life–well, I prepare to enforce it–through target practice.
see-dubya on September 21, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Boy, am I convinced…
d1carter on September 21, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Thing is, as Thompson says, the baby is not an illegal immigrant, so I do disagree. How exactly would you like to see the citizenship laws defined?
Big S on September 21, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Hollowpoint beat me to the zinger, so here’s the long drawn out, and boring rebuttal:
If what you wrote is true, then the next logical step would be to say that right (as in right and wrong; also the root word for “rights”) only exists to the extent that it is enforceable. This would be a might makes right philosophy which is completely contrary to the foundation of the republic. Would you also like to have the government dictating what is right and wrong? Or perhaps you would like to have right and wrong be determined by popular vote. Just sayin’. That point of view will ultimately take you to fascism, in the best case scenario.
samuelrylander on September 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM
I don’t want to step into the middle of a donneybrook here, but, I have to live up to my name sometimes…
The governemnet doesn’t “enforce” rights in the broadest sense. It limits freedoms. The Bill of Rights is list of Freedoms which cannot be abridged by the government. That’s why many of us believe in small government, to limit its’ ability to abridge freedoms. If we thought the government “enforced” rights, we’d want more government so we could have more rights enforced.
trubble on September 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM
And of course Romney is against campaign finance reform… we’ll now he is; he was for it before he was against it:
Again- review his voting record and you’ll find that he voted pro-life and anti-gun control, and actually maintains those positions rather than reversing course for a campaign.
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM
To synthesize the parallel arguments going on here, if Thompson wants to “revisit” birthright citizenship, that means he wants to repeal part of the 14th amendment. Therefore, he’s obviously found something in the Constitution that’s wrong.
Big S on September 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM
What smauelrylander said. Who was it who said “Power comes from the barrel of a gun?” Jefferson? Adams? Oh..wait…MAO.
How long have you been a MAOIST, Allah?
see-dubya on September 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM
trubble on September 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM
There it is. The truth is refreshing.
samuelrylander on September 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM
I knew FrankJ was a Maoist since he named his blog after Mao, but I’m surprised to see that sort of thing here.
No wonder Fred won’t do a Vent!
see-dubya on September 21, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Wow, AP. That’ll sober up a reader pretty quick.
Spirit of 1776 on September 21, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Especially because I admire your abilities, I’m dismayed by this exchange, AP. Your work in politics will benefit from your becoming a careful reader of Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke. The Republic, the Politics, and the Second Treatise would be a fine start.
Kralizec on September 21, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Like Thompson (and most of us on this site), I’d like to see an end to the practice of chain migration, by which an illegal comes to the US, has a baby, then uses that baby’s citizenship status to gain preferential treatment.
While the baby would still have citizenship (something I would like to see changed when the parents are illegals, but won’t happen since it would require a Constitutional amendment), the parents and family wouldn’t be rewarded for entering illegally as they often are now.
But of course now you’re dodging- please explain how anything in the context of the article you referred to (but not surprisingly didn’t link to) suggests that Thompson would be “ending the birthright of future generations” as you so dishonestly claimed.
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Not to mention if you are going to criticize the man, as if you are wiser, it would be in your best interest to know what part were his words and what part of it was changed in committee from his draft before it was approved.
Spirit of 1776 on September 21, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Um… the Declaration of Independance is not the same as the Constitution.
That said, I find things wrong in the Constitution; the 14th Amendment allows for the offspring of illegal aliens to be automatic citizens (it was intended to grant citizenship to the offspring of freed slaves) and the entire 17th Amendment was a mistake.
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Kralizec– I think Allah, like many of my favorites on the right wing blogosphere, is a laissez-faire Hobbesian.
see-dubya on September 21, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Man’s mind in the source of rights. He must use his mind to judge what is right. The value that is the basis for this judgement is that which is for life as opposed to that which is for death. Government is formed by free men to protect those rights. Unscrupulas men use government to enforce their own will.
Franklin Hill on September 21, 2007 at 5:46 PM
This is something I love about conservatives…If dkos said something stupid (albeit probably cause he did really think of the implications of his statement) and contrary to the foundations of nutrootism, does anyone really believe his readers would question? They might be confused, but for fear of people knowing that they weren’t smart enough to know what was going on they would just agree or keep silent. Conservatives actually know what they believe.
samuelrylander on September 21, 2007 at 5:47 PM
And that’s one of the big things that separate us from them. They recite bumper stickers; we think things through based on fact and logic.
jdawg on September 21, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Ha ha ha you really think laissez-faire is the right word????
doriangrey on September 21, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 5:40 PM
I know; I wasn’t responding to your comment.
As for the Thompson quote: He said that we should revisit birthright citizenship, which, no matter what the context is, involves removing the birthright of individuals in future generations who would otherwise be American citizens.
Also: The 17th? Really? Why?
Big S on September 21, 2007 at 5:50 PM
it’s a teeny-tiny Leviathan.
see-dubya on September 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM
While I agree with your intent, which I believe is to defend our rights, your thesis can’t get you there. If men’s minds are the source of our rights, then if I could convince enough of my fellow men that you no longer had a right to live then it would be right for us to take your life, regardless of the circumstances.
Also, where then, if your valuation of right and wrong do not come from a creator, does your standard of scruplulous or unscrupulous come from
samuelrylander on September 21, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Also your rights disappear when you go to sleep or fall unconscious.
You’d always wake up wondering who stole your pants, and the courts coudln’t do anything.
see-dubya on September 21, 2007 at 5:55 PM
I don’t laugh out loud much when I’m by myself, but dang.
samuelrylander on September 21, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Sorry. Still laughing.
samuelrylander on September 21, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Skimming your post, you make an interesting point. An expedient ship of state that is nimble and capable. I hadn’t really thought of it before, but that is a reactionary position, not unlike the Chris Matthews theory of presidential election to ‘fix’ the errors of the last President. Clinton a ladies man to Bush a one-woman man, etc. See a problem, become a conservative. Makes sense and also allots the value of expediency over principle.
The reality of the ideology roots though, are not only in what AP dismisses and erroneously projects the root of rights to be (which by the way, if they are given to you conditionally they are then at best gifts, at worst loans, not rights), but they come from a vast study of all the examples history had to yield – regardless of religious persuasion, which I presume is the fount of AP’s dismissal.
Kralizec’s advise is fine, but Adam’s ‘Defence’ walks through it all.
Spirit of 1776 on September 21, 2007 at 5:58 PM
It’s funny because it’s so true! And did you know that Locke was a much better Hobbesian than Hobbes?
Kralizec on September 21, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Gentlemen, my intent was to give you a place to start, not to map out a complete legal system.
Franklin Hill on September 21, 2007 at 6:00 PM
It lead to earmarks for votes, influence peddling and campaign contribution bribery that we see now. It’s a lot easier to influence 50 Senators than 50 state legislatures.
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 6:01 PM
As for the Thompson quote: He said that we should revisit birthright citizenship, which, no matter what the context is, involves removing the birthright of individuals in future generations who would otherwise be American citizens.
And you got “removing the birthright of individuals in future generations” from his suggestion that we revisit the 14th Amendment? Wow, you must be a psychic.
Oh, wait- there’s no such thing as psychics.
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 6:01 PM
I don’t buy it. People will find a way to bribe officials and/or spend taxpayer money whether or not they were popularly elected. Also, it’s a hell of a lot harder for us (the voters) to influence Senators if we can’t, you know, vote for them. Do I detect a bit of anti-democratic elitism there?
Big S on September 21, 2007 at 6:05 PM
That’s a great phrase, see-dubya.
Kralizec on September 21, 2007 at 6:06 PM
OK, now I am the one confused. Were you giving us a place to start understanding how atheists justify us having rights? Trying to replace what is already the understood starting place of our rights as having derived from a creator? Or something else?
samuelrylander on September 21, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 6:05 PM
No, I was specifically pointing out that he’s complaining about abusing the birthright of future generations in the second video posted above, when he has also supported curtailing birthright citizenship in this country.
Big S on September 21, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Animals have no rights. Humans have rights. This is the best argument for God yet.
.
AP, if there is no God, then there is no right and wrong, because nothing would matter, and life would be a wasted existence; mindless mating, eating and crapping, for no reason whatever, just like a cow.
.
Are you equivelent to a cow?
AZCON on September 21, 2007 at 6:12 PM
For the love of all that is sacred and good and righteous, please don’t turn this into a religious debate.
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 6:14 PM
that sounds just like God.
samuelrylander on September 21, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Yeah, he also owned slaves. He wasn’t always right. Get over it.
Allahpundit on September 21, 2007 at 4:59 PM
That’s what my liberal sociology professor says.
VolMagic on September 21, 2007 at 6:17 PM
OK, Jeri is hot and I agree with Fred about the anchor babies.
AZCON on September 21, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Ha. I guess it’s time for KP to declare ‘Mission Accomplished’. Just kidding, it’s probably a bridge too far for her even, but that’s just a guess.
Spirit of 1776 on September 21, 2007 at 6:24 PM
No, you detect a sense that the Founding Fathers had it right, but the backers of the 17th Amendment got it wrong in a way that’s hurt the political process.
Before the 17th, Senators were still indirectly responsible to the voters by way of the state legislators that appointed them. However, they didn’t have to be preoccupied with raising campaign cash or buying votes with porkbarrel handouts.
The Senate was supposed to be the more deliberative body; one that represented the states equally and were less prone to be pushed by the “tyranny of the majority”. Now they’re little more than a smaller version of the House of Representatives.
The 17th Amendment was a mistake, but it’s unlikely enough of the population would grasp why it was a mistake to overturn it- you can bet that incumbent Senators would be against it.
You can find more information here.
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Love what your sayin’ Fred, but your gonna hafta sound like you’re convinced of it first before you can convince others.
Just sayin…
infidel4life on September 21, 2007 at 6:30 PM
ATHEISM ~ “Pure, unadulterated crap.” ((just saying))
Sultry Beauty on September 21, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 6:24 PM
That’s crazy talk.
Big S on September 21, 2007 at 6:32 PM
I think you guys need to rethink your arguments against AP here. If I’m reading him correctly, he is right.
He didn’t say the right didn’t exist. It does exist, but that existence only extends to the point where it is not enforced.
People who live in Iran have rights, but they cannot enjoy them because there is no one to secure that right for them. So, in practical exercise of rights, the people of Iran are seriously limited. What good does it do to have a right if you are unable to enjoy it? This is the basis for getting out of Iraq as far as the Iraqi’s are concerned. In most areas the peoples rights are only being secured by our troops. But even under US protection, we limit their rights.
Ask yourself if any murdered Iraqi rights were a benefit to him. The answer is no. So, without having rights enforced, his right to live didn’t do him a dang bit of good.
Is that about it AP?
csdeven on September 21, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Hollowpoint on September 21, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Not to chase off on another topic, but even in the time of the first years of the new government, the appointed by state procedure created problems, and in fact the early problems in the House were attributed to the inability for the more distinguished politicians to get elected to the Senate. Disclaimer: no position for/against.
Spirit of 1776 on September 21, 2007 at 6:36 PM
I missed a blue-on-blue firefight? Damn.
I see BKennedy couldn’t pass up an attempt to take a few cheap shots at the biggest threat to the Republican policy version Bill Clinton.
steveegg on September 21, 2007 at 6:37 PM
From the rough draft of the Declaration:
INC on September 21, 2007 at 6:38 PM
…policy version of Bill Clinton, even.
steveegg on September 21, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Great! I await your proof.
Scientific method please.
Stephen M on September 21, 2007 at 6:50 PM
Spirit of 1776 on September 21, 2007 at 6:36 PM
The problem with the “Repeal 17″ folks is that they make the tacit assumption that the power of the states exists for its own sake. It does not; rather, it exists to better protect the rights of individuals who reside therein. Giving electoral voice to those people allows for an additional check on the power of the federal government over individuals by providing yet another independent governmental body.
Big S on September 21, 2007 at 7:13 PM
see-dubya has an important and crucial point. I believe the thinking of our Founders was that God has given rights to man. They are not granted by the government, because if they were, then the government could take them away.
The Declaration goes on to say:
Government exists to secure these rights, not to give them.
INC on September 21, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Thomas Jefferson, 1825 – letter to Henry Lee
BTW, the movie 1776 has Jefferson saying some of these words. The musical, while it has some inaccuracies, does quote the Founders and is a painless way to absorb some history.
INC on September 21, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Benjamin Rush, 1812 – to John Adams
INC on September 21, 2007 at 7:30 PM
John Madison, 1792
INC on September 21, 2007 at 7:33 PM
I wonder who’s writing these one liners for him..and are they tax deductable..or is he paying for them out of his campaign funds..Look out Jay Leno here comes Freddy..!!
Legions on September 21, 2007 at 8:03 PM
1994. Thats what you guys always go back to. 13 years and nothing has changed, M I RITE!
BKennedy on September 21, 2007 at 8:57 PM
I guess this is where the big A gets off the Fred train?
And no interviews with the first ladies in running unless it’s with “all” of them!
Mcguyver on September 21, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Ummmm Jefferson would have something to say about that. That little thing about the people.
- The Cat
MirCat on September 21, 2007 at 10:52 PM
P.S.
Yes, I want Jeri. . . to do a vent, I mean to do a vent.
MirCat on September 21, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Go Fred. If you’re a Fred Head send in your money NOW.
God is the source of all government and authority and all mans’ rights. Our constitution and bill of rights LIMIT government they don’t “give” us rights, those come from God. Get is straight folks.
Mojave Mark on September 22, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Sorry AP, calling you out on this one.
You are right in one respect, God does not enforce our rights. But the government does not either. The People do! That is the basis for our system, and too many people like yourself have forgotten that little fact. The power in our system lays with the people and not the central government. That is the basis for our constitution and what the founders intended.
conservnut on September 22, 2007 at 12:35 AM
I might also add it is the main reason for the 2nd amendment
conservnut on September 22, 2007 at 12:39 AM
As long as you have me on my soap box I will continue.
No government ever gave rights to people. Rights were only gained when real men stood up and took them!
csdeven, you talked about the Iranians and Iraqis and how they have rights but can’t enjoy them. They only can’t enjoy them because not enough real men have stood up and demanded them. You can call them “God given” or the “Law of the West” or just the natural order of things. It takes men willing to stand up for them to have them.
AP I think you have been in NYC too long. In this part of the world, we don’t look to government to enforce our rights. We stand up for them ourselves. Sometimes at the voting booth by electing individuals that are like minded. And sometimes by standing up to oppression on our own. That is the attitude that brought about our system and our government. And that is the only way people gain and enforce rights.
conservnut on September 22, 2007 at 1:04 AM
Everyone’s always looking for the perfect Big Mac, just like the one in the picture. They keep complaining and and buying them hoping it will happen, someday.
Egfrow on September 22, 2007 at 1:05 AM
Since the ‘people’ or at least the ignorant half of them actually have the power to disarm, censor, unfairly tax and even inprison me with their opinions and the effect it has on the actions of public-pleasing politicians, I’m thinking that maybe those unalienable rights DON’T come directly from God. That’s an interesting and intriguing debate. I’m votin’ Republican, no matter who the nominee is. I’m ready to risk a little moderate thinking for a gurantee that the Lefties don’t take over and further ruin our society.
Rugged Individual on September 22, 2007 at 2:55 AM
A non-deistic way of saying it would be: Rights are inherent entitlements of sentient existence. They cannot be given to or removed from the sentient person, only infringed upon. They exist outside of government in the anarchistic state of man and are dependent on no outside entity to exist.
One of the puropses of Government is to limit the individual’s freedoms in order to protect the rights of all the people it serves.
AP just had a knee-jerk anti-theistic reaction. I run across it all the time from evangelical anti-theists. The word God just sets them to barking like a dog baying at the moon.
J/k on the last paragraph, but honestly, AP, you really need to look into the concept of rights a little more closely.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on September 22, 2007 at 3:38 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »