Questioner who asked Fred the “fire in the belly” question: He rules
posted at 8:45 pm on January 1, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Via TGT11, he faced the gulf of hostile press — and triumphed.
After listening to Sen. Thompson and thinking about what he said, I can only conclude he is the best candidate for the job.
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: « Previous 1 2
Umm… did I miss a memo somewhere?
Dude. This place is LITTERED with pro/con EVERYONE.
Well, except for Huckabee. Lots of cons. No pros.
If you find a pro-Huck post, you get a gold coin. I think we have a quest afoot.
wccawa on January 1, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Take me to the pilot. I want lessons.
Fred!
infidel on January 1, 2008 at 11:02 PM
wccawa on January 1, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Not to spar with you (dudette here, btw), but the peeve from everyone’s camp is that the site is not pro one or the other candidate yet…that was my only point.
p.s. I still think that you’re a funny dude. Carry on :)
Entelechy on January 1, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Btw
wccawa on January 1,2007 at 10:51PM
wccawa:I checked out Drudge,looks a bit like a Todd Sweeny
commercial,and besides what’s with the dude wearing
the white t-shirt,”I miss Bill” backdropped with the
American flag,and ConHillary strutting the stage!
canopfor on January 1, 2008 at 11:07 PM
infidel, Fred’s too busy for that now. Given your nome de plume, you best be ready to learn how to land as well.
Entelechy on January 1, 2008 at 11:07 PM
AP, rockin’ as usual.
Go Fred.
Griz on January 1, 2008 at 11:11 PM
I knew I forgot something like the closing </sarcasm> tag. Mea culpa.
steveegg on January 1, 2008 at 11:13 PM
I’ve got no problem with the site being pro or con anyone. Bryan is always fair, AP a bit less so, but I understand the need for traffic.
But there are tons of pro/con comments. Life crushing amounts of comments. Suffocating numbers of them.
It’s prob’ly just a misunderstanding on my part, and I beg you not to take me to the woodshed.
But the pro-Huck challenge remains. Find one pro-Huck comment on Hot Air, win a prize!
PS- I am keenly aware of your dudette status. Carry on, fair mistress.
wccawa on January 1, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Iowa Caucuses do not allow absentee voting: ergo, no deployed troops participate!
bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Coming down is the hardest part.
And just to stay on topic;
Fred!
infidel on January 1, 2008 at 11:14 PM
One that is completely unbiased? I don’t think I saw one yet. One that is moderately-biased (namely, why I’m a FredHead), most certainly.
steveegg on January 1, 2008 at 11:15 PM
How quickly some forget what happens to those who mess with cats.
FeralCat on January 1, 2008 at 11:16 PM
We’re not talking 300-pound tigers that will rip one’s throat out here. Besides, I believe I issued my mea culpa.
steveegg on January 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM
The dearth of Huck fans here is probably because he is a fictitious creation of the MSM, no more no less.
I think the Iowa caucus will bear that out .
The only contest Huck could win in Iowa is a pancake eating contest.
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 11:19 PM
bare
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 11:21 PM
?
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Check this FR poll out.
Connie on January 1, 2008 at 11:23 PM
That’s what I be talkin’ ’bout foo’!
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 11:26 PM
I participated in that poll. Freepers and the blog world in general don’t rely on the MSM for their information, unfortunately the same can’t be said of the public in general.
P. James Moriarty on January 1, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Which is just the latest bit of evidence of a divergence between the old-school (LeftStreamMedia) chattering class and the new-school (right end of the blogosphere) chattering class.
The $100,000,000 (give or take whatever portion of that is overflow from MoveOn sent to prop up Ron Paul) question is which chattering class, if any, reflects voter reality.
steveegg on January 1, 2008 at 11:29 PM
A nekkid pancake-eating contest?
Connie on January 1, 2008 at 11:29 PM
To answer your question Terri, how does Romney win in the general:
By attracting anti-illegal immigration democrats and by showcasing his strong financial history.
Spirit of 1776 on January 1, 2008 at 11:30 PM
By the way, Josh Painter is Welcoming the Tancredo supporters
Connie on January 1, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Is this a scientific poll?
csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 11:34 PM
And I’d forgotten the smiley – just proves that we both didn’t have enough to drink last night. No culpas, no worries, so long as you were just kidding.
Entelechy on January 1, 2008 at 11:35 PM
No, no, no…you got it all wrong, AP…he meant Allah has a tool.
It was in the nature of being a compliment.
/trying to lighten up the bash Allahpundit mood that’s going around. We don’t all have to see eye to eye on everything, folks. That’s why there are several candidates running–so we can have a choice.
Bob's Kid on January 1, 2008 at 11:36 PM
CNN poll 1-1-08
Romney 31
Huckabee 28
Thompson 13
McCain 10
P. James Moriarty on January 1, 2008 at 11:36 PM
As did I. My point in posting it was simply to show how few Huckabee supporters there seem to be in the conservative blogosphere. The majority of those who supported him in that poll are non-members of FR. I had a discussion somewhere with a Huckabee supporter who said “I am not a conservative.” So there you go.
Connie on January 1, 2008 at 11:37 PM
I just shocked the paulies didnt hammer that poll into sawdust
William Amos on January 1, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Why do conservatives revere Reagan so much? He really didn’t do much for the conservative cause. Sure, he brought the country out of a long, depressing period of the 70’s (Vietnam, Watergate, Jimmy Carter) and made us all feel good about being Americans again. While I don’t want discount that, or his strength when dealing with the Soviet Union, he didn’t do much else.
Reagan should have bombed Iran as soon as the last hostage was safe on the ground. His first act as President should have been showing the Iranians that we would not put up with that act of war. Which is what it was. He let them get away with it. He was weak in their eyes and that was the beginning of the rise of modern Islamic terrorism. He should have blown Lebanon to dirt after 240 of our Marines were killed there. He did nothing.
He did worse than nothing for immigration. I’ve read from conservatives themselves that Reagan is chiefly responsible for the 12 million illegals here today that bother them so much.
Reagan was an embarrassment at press conferences. If anyone was surprised at the announcement that the man suffered from Alzheimer’s they never watched one of his press conferences. It was obvious to anyone who watched him in a unscripted moment that the man was this side of being a drooling idiot. It was painful sometimes to watch him try to get through a press conference.
I do not understand this reverence for Reagan. He was a good man, and a good president. But is he the best conservatives have to compare anyone to? If he is, that’s pretty sad.
Jaynie59 on January 1, 2008 at 11:39 PM
JohnRob has a secret sauce he uses to keep the Paul-Nuts at bay.
steveegg on January 1, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Anyone can vote, but only one vote from any IP #. It just depends on who finds the poll, I guess. (Now if I see Romney’s go up suddenly, I’ll know who to blame…lol!)
Connie on January 1, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Entelechy on January 1, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Ok.
csdeven on January 1, 2008 at 11:42 PM
I’m going to link to the other thread where this topic is being discussed so I don’t have to repeat my thoughts on this matter which are not a rave review for Todd Chelf, the fire in the belly dude from Ohio.
And can I claim credit for the phrase crimes against conservatism or has this been a part of our lexicon and I just never consciously noticed it before?
Just in case it is new and takes off like a rocket, I want to be able to add it to that dictionary of mine which some people find so irritating but whose accuracy I stand by:-)
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 11:43 PM
The FR one? 488 non-members tried.
Connie on January 1, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Reagan did bomb Libya for its role in terrorism. Also Regan did order the Missouri to bomb Lebanon after the Berit bombing
As for Iran the problem was the other hostage crisis. The one where Iranian stooges took Americans hostage in Lebanon after the US left. So really the Iranian hostage crisis would last for many years after the embassy people came home
And finally the military and CIA were so gutted by the Carter Admin the US military had problems even just carrying out Grenada. Reagan had to rebuild the military from its weakest time. The Gulf War victory was due to Reagans efforts
Keep in mind also that the Soviet Union was a bigger threat to Reagan than the Ayatollahs. Afganistan and Nicarauga were top threats in Reagans mind more than Iran was. Reagan was bent on winning the cold war not the WOT which was just starting
William Amos on January 1, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Connie, Free Republic is also a social libertarian site. They are anti-abortion, pro-troops and pro-defense, but their roots are libertarian, not evangelical in nature.
bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Are you talking about the “scientific polls” that refused to realign their built-in biases after the 1994, 2002 and 2004 elections, but did so after the 2006 election?
steveegg on January 1, 2008 at 11:46 PM
OT – West Coast time to watch the Vienna New Year’s Concert. Back later, to see if you’ve solved it.
csdeven, Happy New Year!
Entelechy on January 1, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Of course not! Is any “poll” scientific? A poll by it’s very nature is unscientific, polls have way to much noise and derfingerpoken.
Even the very process of the Australian ballot is inherently non-scientific.
Do you have any idea how many deceased citizens voted for LBJ?
TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 11:51 PM
There’s been a few, I think. I’m not positive, but I believe that Complete7 is a Huck supporter.
FloatingRock on January 1, 2008 at 11:52 PM
After they released the hostages?
No! No! No!
That’s bass ackwards.
You attack if they don’t release hostages, not if they do.
He was not weak in their eyes.
Just why do you think they released the hostages basically the minute he became President?
Blown Lebanon to dirt for what one Lebanese faction did? He did what he should have done – got Americans troops out of another country rather than get thousands of Americans killed for nothing in another countries civil war.
MB4 on January 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM
She got me!!! The goggles do nothing!!!
wccawa on January 1, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Right, and the reason Fred’s campaign style is so aloof and such a spectacular failure to date is because he’s smarter than everyone else. What was it you said? Something about him having more brain cells than the other candidates?
With comments like that it’s hard not to GAZE over your analysis of Reagan.
By the way, I had a Fred epiphany of sorts today. I think the fact that he didn’t chose Leno for a debate left me questioning his decision making abilities early on. And, yes, I have said that I think he is “lazy” or lacks oomph but I don’t need pundits to tell me that! Isn’t it obvious? To say that we are being led by the nose in this regard is like saying that we agree that Hillary has cankles is something we never would have noticed if not for the MSM.
Buy Danish on January 2, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Jumma carter should have given those punks an absolute ultimatum to:
Fly the hostages 1st class to JFK airport and have them land safely with in 24 hours or The united States of America would turn that Sh!thole they call Iran into an ash tray!
And launch 100 sub launched missiles the very nanosecond they did not comply.
Whack the hostages and all. In a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan.
We have brought this scourge upon us by being a bunch of diplomatic pu$$ies!
TheSitRep on January 2, 2008 at 12:05 AM
steveegg on January 1, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Thanks, this is kind of what I was looking for. It is at least a start.
I am a Fred Thompson supporter as well, but I want to get a list of his negatives as well. I just want a basic list of all the candidates pros and cons on one page for easy comparison, with links to the more in depth explanation of each.
I’m going to make this my mission for the rest of the week and this weekend.
If anyone wants to send me info they have on the candidates, please feel free. Especially things related to valid, serious criticisms of Fred Thompson. I am very biased when it comes to him, so sometimes I only see the good and miss the bad.
csdeven, I know you have a lot of reservations about him, so your input would help. Thanks in advance.
chgofan333 on Yahoo
Michael in MI on January 2, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Glad I could get you started. I’m not a 5,000-word guy, and I tried to stick with hard items I could verify (which leaves out stuff like the “fire in the belly” meme, the Mormon issue, the Kerik affair, Huck’s cross, McCain’s temper).
steveegg on January 2, 2008 at 12:11 AM
I’ve started bookmarking the few valid criticisms/questions I’ve seen in the past week or two. I’ll also let you know what comes up.
Connie on January 2, 2008 at 12:11 AM
I always thought the best defense against these neanderthals was to have the POTUS make a prime time address stating this, and this only:
“Any Islamic terrorist group that attacks American citizens or interests anywhere in the world will face the following reprisal.
Upon establishment of proof, the United States will provide exactly five days notice that we will explode a high-yield device over Mecca.
As this is a domestic security issue of the United State of America, there will be no discussion with any foreign power on the subject.
If further attacks on Americans continue, the same policy and timing will apply. We have prepared a secondary target list that you may view at *****.com”
That is all.”
wccawa on January 2, 2008 at 12:17 AM
True. That’s the main reason the JR has railed against the Ron Paul people, but hasn’t banned them. I’m on the conservative side of the libertarian/conservative line in the tiny test. I always said my conservatism is the thing that keeps me on the sane side. Libertarians have a selfish, me-first side that I just can’t agree with.
Connie on January 2, 2008 at 12:20 AM
steveegg on January 2, 2008 at 12:11 AM
I agree with all your non-valids except for the Bernard Kerik situation. I think that is important to get an idea of how Rudy Giuliani would choose his Cabinet and surrounding advisors as well as whom he would appoint to important positions in government and possibly to the Supreme Court.
Michelle Malkin has noted some of President Bush’s bad appointments to places such as DHS, I believe. So I think judgement in appointments is a valid criticism.
Connie on January 2, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Thanks, Connie. I have so much bookmarked, but it just is not organized by topic. I have everything organized by candidate, which each candidate’s favorites folder having tens of articles. I need to go through each of them to get the story and see if they are sufficient as a source for the pros and cons list.
Michael in MI on January 2, 2008 at 12:23 AM
G’night, ladies and gents…
wccawa on January 2, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Wait a minute.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjA2ZGFmMjg5NWI1MWQwNjk1NGEyMDIyYjE0NWY3MzI=
Is this right? All this pissin/moanin’ about Iowa and no delegates are at stake? if this is accurate; rudy is the only one with a brain out there.
lorien1973 on January 2, 2008 at 12:28 AM
No. Just of being a douchebag. Or possibly trolling for traffic. Though the two are not mutually exclusive.
Centerfire on January 2, 2008 at 12:29 AM
I think that the Ronulans have been using Anonymizer.com to spam polls. If Free Republic barred connections from Anonymizer.com and similar services it would probably kill the Ronulans dirty poll spamming tricks. If this is the case, the numbers we see in the FR poll for Ron Paul are probably a fairly accurate representation of how many Ronulans it takes to spam a poll, because many of the people voting for Ron Paul in the poll probably would have voted more than once if they’d been allowed.
That’s not to say that there are that many FR readers that support Ron Paul, only that the Ronulans who were alerted to the poll and headed over the FR to spam it could only vote once.
FloatingRock on January 2, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Interesting (from lorien1973’s link to NRO):
In other words, nothing really matters until Jan 29th, when the Florida primary will be held?
So what do we really care about polls from:
Michael in MI on January 2, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Maybe not, but the MSM will, which is why we have to keep working our tails off.
Plus, there is the “mayor whose name shall not be mentioned” that will factor in if we make the mistake of not ignoring him.
Connie on January 2, 2008 at 12:38 AM
You may have a point. I’m not sure what JR uses. Maybe I’ll mention it to him.
Connie on January 2, 2008 at 12:40 AM
If Pakistan falls and their nukes get loose the MAD announcement should be step one.
FloatingRock on January 2, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Judging by the fact that Ron Paul didn’t finish in first or second place I would guess that he already did something like that, but I could be wrong. Maybe Ronulans just didn’t make a serious effort to spam the poll because most of them lacked accounts and realized that their efforts would be easily dismissed by the non-member category.
Anyway, it’s all just speculation on my part.
FloatingRock on January 2, 2008 at 12:53 AM
…So the motorcycle jump is a metaphor for life. I get it now.
Mojave Mark on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Thompson/Australian motorbike rider ‘08!
Reaps on January 2, 2008 at 3:26 AM
Though in that case it should have been over a 300-foot-long tank full of mutant shark-o-diles.
saint kansas on January 2, 2008 at 4:52 AM
With lasers.
Stashiu3 on January 2, 2008 at 5:12 AM
Don’t forget that Mitt the “lifelong hunter”…errr the “I went hunting once right before the election” Romney is a “gun grabber”.
2008 checklist:
No amnesty… check, 2nd Amendment… check, NOT a tax-n-spender… check, limited federal government… check, not neurotic about killing the enemies of our country… check
Sorry csdevin :(… still Fred.
BadBrad on January 2, 2008 at 6:51 AM
Late to the Dance here.
1.) I saw this article yesterday and am happy Allah saw fit to feature it here.
2.) No. Allah is not a tool. While I can understand the frustration some might feel, I feel it too, such comments are unfair and won’t help anything.
3.) I’m not sure how much more can be said about the race in Iowa and our man Fred. I’ve got my fingers crossed. All we can do is wait and see.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 2, 2008 at 7:24 AM
dam well said.
Griz on January 2, 2008 at 8:03 AM
1) HA readers want Fred posts
2) is everyone who leans toward any candidate a “tool”?
3) George Washington never had any “fire in the belly”
jgapinoy on January 2, 2008 at 8:30 AM
I like Fred because he comes off as the adult in the campaign, and says the right things to make a conservative kitty purr. Ron Paul is a non-starter for me. I’d vote for Hillary first because she isn’t a truther. Huckabee and McCain are “hold-your-nose” candidates for me. I could vote for either Rudy or Mitt, but neither imbues me with enthusiasm because of social policy and the “slick factor” respectively. I like Fred, but I don’t think I’m a “Fredhead”, whatever that is.
And AP is a tool, always has been, and that’s why I like him.
Immolate on January 2, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Now THAT’S where you’re wrong, mc. I think Frednecks like me have been very helpful.
We are just not willin’ to just roll with whatever the leader tells us. Sometimes in life ya gotta stand-up for your own point of view.
I don’t make attacks, I use folk’s OWN WORDS against’em. (except for tellin’ Tammy Bruce to bite me- and that was in a moment of extreme pique)
I haven’t noticed such a systematic effort to stomp out and destroy a candidate in my whole life as I’ve seen against Fred. I only lose my temper when folks INSIST on callin’ it over when it’s not.
As for us bein’ too hard on Allah, ya’ll are gittin’ a little too PC don’t ya think?? Allah’s a big boy and can TAKE as good as he GIVES. I’m pretty sure he can defend himself, if he fels the need. He don’t need you to do it for him.
As for you MadisonConservative-Bite Me.
Ex-tex on January 2, 2008 at 8:58 AM
It’s a vast dinosaur-media-Republican-elite-neocon-meddlers-scooby-doo-and-those-blasted-interlopers-anyone-but-Fred-screwing-his-own-pooch conspiracy I tell you!
This message paid for by
blame society for your problemsI’m with Fred! ‘08!BKennedy on January 2, 2008 at 9:08 AM
I agree with you that Allah is a big boy. Its obvious he enjoys mixing it up and tweaking not just us Fred Heads but pretty much anyone else who comes here. I did think that saying he was a tool was going to far not to mention unfounded.
And while, far more in deeds than words, he, AP, has been a friend to us by giving us multiple posts a-day, it cannot be ignored that our activity here, doubtless also contributes significantly to the daily traffic count.
Also, Tex, I strongly agree with you that there does seem to be an effort to boost the Huckster, at the expense of Fred, though mainly in the MSM. Clearly they would love to see a southern socialist in Republican clothing, who will be easy to defeat, whose candidacy will splinter the party, split off evangelicals and freeze out the conservative movement altogether. By inferring an air of futility to Fred’s campaign they would kill it off early and put conservatism on the outside looking in for the foreseeable future. The stakes are indeed very high so the passion is understandable.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on January 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Who is? I haven’t seen one person for Rudy, Mitt, Huck, or McCain, that are willing to roll with whatever the leader says.
That’s commendable.
Reporting on a candidates failures isn’t the same as trying to destroy him. I think it’s commendable for people who oppose any candidate to stand up for their POV by expressing it. I don’t think it’s over for Fred, but I certainly do not see him getting first or second in Iowa. Irrespective of the polls, Fred just is not drawing the crowds that Huck and Mitt are. Respective of the polls, even if they are wrong, does anyone think they can be so wrong that Fred can pick up 20 points while Huck and Mitt lose 20 points?
Considering all that, it is more than likely that Fred will come in no better than a distance third. Admitting that is not the same as not standing up for a persons values. It’s just a rational assessment. Is it possible that he will show better? Sure it is. But history isn’t on the side of that happening.
csdeven on January 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Fredalanche©
TheSitRep on January 2, 2008 at 9:51 AM
How many times do we have to go through this? It’s time for an education revolution. GW lost his first election. Did he say ‘well the people want something else’. No, he ran again and he lubricated the process with copious amounts of alcohol. Do you think that was because he just had extra lying around the house?
How about after he retired when he was called back up by the Adams administration? He embarrassed Pres. Adams by demanding more authority over the officer corp then the CinC himself. If you need me to keep going, I will, but the short of it is – GW was a truly great man and he imposed his will just as much as any man in our history, so can you please stop dragging him into Fred-threads. Thanks.
Spirit of 1776 on January 2, 2008 at 10:15 AM
George Washington was a RINO and not a true conservative Spirit of 1776. He spent all his time retreating where Fred would have simply roundhoused the British army and they’d flee after one battle. Washington had doubts about God, Fred knows only the Lord is superior to Fred Thompson. Washington was ashamed to be a bald man, Fred Thompson is proud of his cue-ball. Washington’s wife wasn’t as hot as Fred’s wife.
Forget Washington, he flipped flop on the US government. First he was for the Articles of Confederation and then he flip flopped and supported the Constitution. Fred has always supported the Constitution.
I’m with Fred! 1788! It’s a Fredalanche!
BKennedy on January 2, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Thanks Spirit for taking the time to respond. I will counter with this:
Romney doesn’t have any credibility on the illegal immigration issue. We can’t trust him. It is one of the issues he has flip flopped on. You mention his financial history. Do you mean in the private sector or public? His rivate sector record is good but his public record as govenor, not so much. Doesn’t he have some problems (history) with fees?
Terri on January 2, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Tancredo’s endorsement of him nullifies those critiques on immigration in the general. He would be the more conservative choice in the general and his record as governor speaks to that: denying illegals drivers licenses, and so on.
By his financial history I mean, he can point to turning the Olympics around financially, and I guess if he wanted to he could point to Bain. Either way though, it’s a strength in the general because his opponent would have no executive experience or budgetary executive experience to speak of. Consequently both would be strong points for him.
I would also add that I think the country is moving toward universal health care and I expect it’s just a matter of when. I’m not a fan of that, I just think it’s more likely than not long-term. So Romney’s plan in MA, if it doesn’t implode from cost before the election would also appeal to moderates who don’t want another government run policy, yet want universal access.
Spirit of 1776 on January 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM
No. You’re guilty of East Coast Elitism similar to the elitism practiced by Chris Matthews.
I think Fred Thompson is a good candidate. I want to hear what he has to say. I’ve given up on the MSM to help me do that. I’ve given up on HotAir to do it as well. I am trying tto decide between Romney and Thompson. All you do Allah is ppoison the well. At least have the cajones to admit it.
HotAir.com has become personal playground of Fred and Fred supporter bashing. Apparently anyone who supports a candidate not secretly endorsed by Allahpundit is guilty of being a cultist–deserving of snarky Fredhead! comments.
On the issue of Fred, Allah, you are a tool.
Montana on January 2, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Well said. We can get stuck with HillaryCare, EdwardsCare, ObamaCare or whatever Marxist policy they might force upon us, or we can be proactive and come up with an efficient free market alternative that does not include price-controls, taxing the American people to death, and so forth.
I don’t understand what is so terrible about requiring people to carry health insurance, anymore than requirements that we have liability insurance on our cars or homes.
Buy Danish on January 2, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I’m not advocating that, I’m merely saying I think it may have a general election impact.
Is this a serious statement?
Spirit of 1776 on January 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Well, I didn’t really mean to say he was a jerk. But if I thought he was a jerk then I would probably have said it and it’s important to me that you know that I have the ability to be tough and say that he is a jerk – especially since I’ve previously indicated as such (him being a jerk, I mean). Thanks for pointing out my shortcomings in calling AP a jerk.
Besides, “hosts” don’t insult their “guests”. Unless, of course, they’re a “jerk”.
Weber48IDA
“Huckabee ‘08″
Weber48IDA on January 2, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Sorry I misunderstood your support – on second look it was clear that you weren’t advocating it yourself.
Yes, I am advocating that. This is not a no harm, no foul situation since taxpayers are stuck picking up the medical costs of the uninsured, and I think that if we don’t do something we will get stuck with some horrible Democrat version. I think at the very least we should be required to carry bare bones, catastrophic coverage.
I think we need to see how the Massachusetts plan works out as it is fully implemented. I realize that that MA is representative of every state, and every state would have a different plan, but it would be a useful guide.
If I could be convinced that there was another solution I’d certainly be open to it!
Buy Danish on January 2, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2