Fred talks faith and the role of the government
posted at 11:48 am on January 14, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Fred gets it. He understands that government isn’t the be-all-end-all solution to all of our problems.
A woman asked him if he would “as a Christian, as a conservative” continue President Bush’s programs to combat global AIDS.
“Christ didn’t tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it,” Thompson said.
“The government has its role, but we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other.”
He received a round of applause for his answer, and went on to expand on the role of government in fighting AIDS and other diseases.
“I’m not going to go around the state and the country with regards to a serious problem and say that I’m going to prioritize that,” he said.
In other words, he’s not going to pander and he’s not going to pull a John Edwards move and promise that the dead will rise and the lame will walk if he’s elected, and he’s not going to ask his campaign workers to “make any promise you have to” to get himself elected. Fred Thompson isn’t going to try to be anyone’s Messiah.
Good.
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 3 Next »
I was probably the first blogger to bring up CFR as an issue that Thompson got wrong. He has said that CFR didn’t work out the way he had hoped and that he regrets supporting it.
Bryan on January 14, 2008 at 2:13 PM
According to the Club for Growth:
Voted for the line-item veto
Voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996, which reduced, and aimed to phase out, farm subsidies while diminishing distortions to the agricultural economy
Sponsored an amendment in 1995 and 1996 against a pay raise for congressional members (though he supported a pay raise in 2002)
Voted for welfare reform
Voted against a 2000 amendment that would provide a prescription drug benefit
Voted against the Farm Security Bill in 2002 that sought to increase agricultural subsidies with market-distorting payments, undoing the progress of the 1996 act
Voted against $2.35 billion in agriculture assistance
1 of 23 senators to vote for an amendment to eliminate funding for programs carried out by the National Endowment for the Arts
1 of 29 senators to support eliminating $2 million in construction funds for a Smithsonian Institution storage facility for specimens stored in alcohol
1 of 26 senators to vote against extending ethanol subsidies
1 of 31 senators voting to strike a $2.5 million earmark for coral reef mapping off the coast of Hawaii
1 of 24 senators voting to remove $50 million for the construction and renovation of facilities at the National Animal Research Laboratory in Ames, Iowa
Thompson’s consistent votes against many popular spending projects are redemptive. After all, it is hard not to give credit to a senator who was 1 of only 3 to vote against increased spending for juvenile crime prevention programs and 1 of 5 to vote against $200 million for school safety programs. Such minority votes were not uncommon for the Senator. He was also 1 of only 2 senators to vote against an additional $16 billion in healthcare funding and 1 of 7 to vote against $7 million worth of grants for anti-violence programs. A few parochial indiscretions aside, Thompson displayed a general willingness to put the federal government on a sorely needed diet.
Overall he has a great record on limited government spending.
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Hey, I’m a moderate, a RINO, and I love what Fred said. Then again, I’m the kind of RINO who posts to HotAir, so I don’t know what exactly I’m typical of. But maybe this explains why my RINOs for Fred club hasn’t been a success.
thuja on January 14, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Well he is obviously obsessed with Fred. Maybe Fred didn’t pay his septic tank spillover cleaning bill to him and he is still upset?
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM
I’ve got a picture of my dog under that same statue. Believe me, the dog is better qualified.
snickelfritz on January 14, 2008 at 2:17 PM
You can have a relationship with God without going to church. I used to go everytime the doors opened, was in the choir, etc. Unfortunately sometimes certain “politics” in the church ruin things for those who come there to worship yet I still have a close relationship with God.
kcd on January 14, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Maybe he was, but Mitt’s Mythical “Mass. Miracle is no joke!
American Spectator tore Romney a new one.
Go Fred Go
flyfisher on January 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Bryan, thanks. Can you provide a link where Fred commented on CFR?
ultraloser on January 14, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Can you cite his regret please? I have not read nor heard him say he regrets it. The only thing I’ve heard him say is that he regrets that it didn’t work the way he intended (which shows some poor foresight, in my opinion).
Again, if you can Bryan, please support the statement that he regrets supporting it. I can provide the opposite if necessary.
Spirit of 1776 on January 14, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Sadly I dont think it is.
Mitt is down to his last race. He is likely to lose in Michigan once Independants vote for McCain. If he does Mitt is out of the race as his Mormonism kills him in the south. Huck will have a feild day reminding evangelicals of Mitts mormonism. Mitt is ready to go out after tomorrow.
Fred isnt catching fire. He is in 5th place in Florida at 7%. IF he cant do well down there he is finished.
Guiliani is fading fast. He needs a win in Florida desperately and right now he is in 3rd place.
After South Carolina we are looking at McCain vs Huck Im afraid.
William Amos on January 14, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I was operating under the premise that the aids problem had been solved.
I use my personal discretion and discipline to avoid the behaviors that would expose me to the illness.
And the government did not have to spend a nickel.
TheSitRep on January 14, 2008 at 2:21 PM
The MSM just won’t give up on trying to downplay Fred. He is the last thing they want in the Republican candidate. They undercover and under report all positives. I will also bet that before the voting starts that there will be a “rigged” poll showing Fred with no increase in support.
duff65 on January 14, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I think Fred can last longer that Ronmey and if Mitt throws his support to Fred that can put him over the top of Huck and McCain.
That too depends on Fred also attacking McCain’s record!
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 2:23 PM
First we have;
Then we have;
After that little exchange, I just have to ask BK…B*ll Sh*t much?
ChrisM on January 14, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Sorry spelling. Romney
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM
BTW even if Mitt wins tomorrow its a phyrric victory. Michigan lost half its delegates and Mitt isnt even going to win by very much if he wins at all. Then its on to the South where Mitt’s mormanism is a killer. After objectively looking at things Mitt is done there is no hope for his campaign.
William Amos on January 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM
The MSM just won’t give up on trying to downplay Fred. He is the last thing they want in the Republican candidate. They undercover and under report all positives. I will also bet that before the voting starts that there will be a “rigged” poll showing Fred with no increase in support.
duff65 on January 14, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I agree! I think the MSM is terrified that Fred could get the nod. I think they know if he does, his popularity would sweep the country once people realize all of the others are RINOS!
kcd on January 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Giuliani is indeed fading fast. I have no reason to believe other than I hear it on TV a lot that this is Mitt’s last race. I also have no reason to believe that whatever happens in SC will cast the race into an uchangeable direction. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, especially in a race unlike any other in history.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I’ve donated to his campaign twice, and will support him till the end. If he doesnt stay in I will still vote for whatever Republican wins the nom, because even the worst Republican is still less of a socialist then any Dem candidate. Kind of the lesser of two evils cliche.
gator70 on January 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I get alot of flak from my family when I tell them that AIDS can be cured, if people exhibited better behavior. AIDS activist like to tell us you can’t get it from casual contact (ie kissing, hugging etc.) , so obviously it’s being transmitted from “intense personal” contact, which you have stated is how to avoid aids. Barring blood transfusions and infants born of aids inflicted mothers, I say also that there should be no reason for AIDS being a major issue.
Besides, isn’t heart disease (which is for the most point non-discriminitory) more of a killer than AIDS?
[This is where I get accused of being harsh and heartless. I am not apologizing for this opinion. It does not mean I don't have compassion for anyone who is ill or sick.]
geckomon on January 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM
My thoughts exactly!
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM
We spend more on fighting AIDS in Africa than Malaria which can be prevented by using DDT and kills millions more people than AIDS in Africa. So, I agree with you. AIDS is a political tool that has been misused for a generation.
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I’m not sure that is the case with Huck. It certainly sounds like his “soul” will compel him to be a socialist. Between his tax and spend record in Arkansas and his class warfare rhetoric in the campaign, I think he’s as bad as the Dems on the economic front. And at least with a Dem win and the following chaos, we’ve got a decent shot at retaking the congress in 2010.
phronesis on January 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I don’t think the US government should be spending any money in Africa at all other than to specifically fight Islamism. I don’t see how this benefits the US. Spending other people’s money for charity isn’t being kind, it’s being a thief.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 2:34 PM
You are not talkin’ about Fred are you? Silly, he is not conservative. He is pro-choice — he said so on Meet the Press. He is against personal freedom — as US Attorney in Tennessee he chose to use his authority to chase moonshiners just trying to enjoy their hooch rather than real criminals. He is against the bill of rights — his only real achievement in his 8 years in the Senate was helping to negotiate the McCain-Fiengold assault on the first amendment. He is weak on immigration as well, he prefers to give US jobs to foreigners rather than citizens — that is why his voting record shows him voting again and again in favor of Spencer Abraham’s open borders agenda.
That doesn’t even get into the character issues — acting like a Washington man-whore after dumping his first wife, lying about being pro-life when he is opposed to the Life Amendment and against criminalizing women who have and doctors that perform abortions. Let’s not forget his career as a lobbyist — the most detested profession in America — where he lobbied for anyone with a checkbook, including abortionists, dictators, and insurance companies attempting to deprive those injured by asbestos of fair compensation. Nor should we forget that when most ethical lawyers (including Kennedy’s wife) refused to accept the hefty retainer, Fred was more than willing to give 3.5 hours of legal advice to the islamic terrorists responsible for killing 270 innocent civilians over Lockerbie Scotland and in essence he help the terrorist avoid extradition out of Libyan and trial in a fair justice system for 11 years. Finally, Fred stole money from the dupes stupid enough to give him money for his prior campaign. He funneled the left over money to a PAC which paid most of the money to his son for “consulting” that never took place.
Note I did not mention that he doesn’t have fire in his belly, refused to wear a silly hate, or is a bad campaigner.
Fred Thompson — the worst conservative candidate ever. Bar. None.
tommylotto on January 14, 2008 at 2:34 PM
It’s time for Mitt to drop out and support Fred. If he plays his cards right he can be VP. Fred has the plan and the abillity to execute it. Plus he’s a big bastard who will make guys like Putin look like a little girly man.
HotAirExpert on January 14, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Fred doesn’t even go to Church..
Chakra Hammer on January 14, 2008 at 1:53 PM
What was Reagan’s record on attending church?
stlpatriot on January 14, 2008 at 2:35 PM
There are gay men who lead modest sex lives but have lovers who may stray. Blaming one of them is morally equivalent to blaming a faithful wife for getting a STD because her husband went to a prostitute.
On the other hand, there is Hepatitis C which has almost no victims who haven’t behaved badly. Who will defend the idea that it’s treatment should not be a priority in medical research? I will admit that I believe that arthritis should be our first priority as it destroys quality of life, but I’m not willing to put medical research priorities on other diseases. Are you SitRep?
thuja on January 14, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I agree. I was just agreeing with the point that AIDS is overused as a political issue. We are a charitiable nation and I am willing to give but as a conservative am not willing to let someone else reach in my pocket to take my money to put into someone elses pocket.
In law enforcement we call that STEALING!!!
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 2:36 PM
If either Huck, McCain, or the Dems win there will be no way to take back the country through regular means. They will install a brand new legalized illegals voting block that with chain migration will create a “permanent” (at least 50 years) Democratic majority.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Brilliant! The man with the most delegates for President drops out to endorse the man without. That would definitely catch all the pundits off guard! Of course, that doesn’t make it a good idea.
Spirit of 1776 on January 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Conservatism wins when we stay true to our principles, not when we sacrifice our values (SoCons, FiCons and NeoCons) and redefine what we believe and what makes us strong in the face of perceived unelectability.
RobTN on January 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Mitt dropping out now assures a McCain win in Michigan and more momentum for him. That would probably be more than enough for him to secure the nomination. All of the other candidates should be hoping for a Mitt win in Michigan to prevent this situation.
phronesis on January 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I think the Mitt dropout idea is IF he does not win in Michigan.
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 2:39 PM
And one less registered Republican, I’m afraid.
With only a couple of exceptions, I’ve believed that for over 30 years, it’s now time for me to stand up for what I believe or go home…sorry.
ChrisM on January 14, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Mitt still has a chance in Mich. If he gets another 2nd place in Mich, then it would be time to consider dropping out.
Latest: Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: The survey shows McCain with a 27% to 24% edge over Romney, with Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee trailing with 15%
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1420
bnelson44 on January 14, 2008 at 2:39 PM
We are in perfect agreement. I see very few roles for the Federal Government other that what was outlined in the constitution and what was traditional soon after the country was formed.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 2:40 PM
That’s sensible but it will probably still be too late to stop McCain.
phronesis on January 14, 2008 at 2:40 PM
He is proposing to appoint judges that would pass the choice for abortion legality down to state level. Federalism, remember? Might as well start calling it Frederalism. What does this mean?
As of now, abortion is legal in all states. If Fred gets his way, abortion will be legal in less states.
How is this pro-choice? And thanks for answering my earlier question with a no.
MadisonConservative on January 14, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Fred Thompson — the worst conservative candidate ever. Bar. None.
tommylotto on January 14, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Tommy you are kind of a “nut case”. That last post was the biggest collection of tripe, misstatements, and general BS that I have seen lately.
duff65 on January 14, 2008 at 2:41 PM
The best thing in Michigan would be for a very close tie and a very poor showing for Huck. Fred’s best hope in SC is peeling off about 20-30% of everybody’s support.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM
That and how is Fred pro-chioce with the endorsement of the National Right to Life?
Have a hard time believe they would endorse a pro-choice candidate. Maybe I am behind the curve but cannot find their endorsements for Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, or Rudy
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Well he is a nut case, but I’ll give him the typo of the day award.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM
That is the same position Rudy has. Appoint strict constructionist judges — the type of justices most likely to overturn Roe and return the decision to the states. But once federalism is restored and the decision was being made on the state level, both Rudy and Fred would both be pro-choice with restrictions. (See, Fred’s statements on MTP, plus his prior statements claiming to be pro-choice as well as his work for abortion groups). Fred and Rudy’s personal ultimate positions are almost identical. GULP
tommylotto on January 14, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Well he is a nut case, but I’ll give him the typo of the day award.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Your right Igor. I didn’t notice it. However, its fits right in with the rest of his diatribe.
duff65 on January 14, 2008 at 2:50 PM
ChrisM on January 14, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Not to mention that Fred is the only candidate endorsed by National Right to Life, and they thoroughly explain their reasoning for it.
OneGyT on January 14, 2008 at 2:51 PM
True, that is what Rudy says…..However, that is not his record as Mayor of New York. He choose many liberal judges.
What liberal judges did Fred support? Roberts? Alito? Hmmm?
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM
It is not my fault NR2L is soo stoopid it gave its support to a candidate that opposes the Life Amendment and is against criminal sanctions for performing abortions.
tommylotto on January 14, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I’m not here that much but every time there is either him or BFKennedy or both bashing Fred and with the same idiocy. It’s just plain weird.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I assume that means you think you could refute each point if necessary…
tommylotto on January 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM
And I will give you the fortitude of the day award for actually reading that entire screed in order to find the typo.
ChrisM on January 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM
My word! I’ve never seen so much doom & gloom! You guys soud like Dims! I need a Rush fix…
kcd on January 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Well I don’t like reading your crap but I’m not pushing for an Amendment to make it illegal. That doesn’t make me pro-tommylotto.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I believe Fred supports the idea of punishing the Doctors that perform abortions if Roe v. Wade gets overturned but not the women. I would be OK with that at first until there could be agreement on what the penalty would be.
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Ha!
geckomon on January 14, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Of course I didn’t, I just glanced at the end of the message and it was right there. He ought to come up with new material, his crap is truly tiresome. I don’t know, maybe accuse Fred of being a cross-dresser like Rudy or something.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 2:58 PM
And Rudy’s idea of a strict constructionist? Apparently someone like him, who can’t decide whether Roe v Wade was sufficiently activist enough to warrant being overturned.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 2:58 PM
“Right on, Right on” as Rush would say.
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 2:59 PM
the NRTL knew who they wanted back in November..
*
http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/111307POTUSEndorsement.pdf
*
so many people that bash Fred on the abortion issue fail to recognize his fedralist stance, it doesnt waver, EVEN with the abortion issue, not that Hamilton, Madison, or Jay had a clue this would be an issue 230 years later, if it was, what do you think thier take would be on it? I really want to know opinions…
1. Strict constitionalist judges
2. Overturn ROE vs. WADE
States VOTE, and abortion becomes as limited as the PEOPLE of each state choose…
My guess? WAY less abortion…
stlpatriot on January 14th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
stlpatriot on January 14, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Well we do know Fred loves everyone except for Huck and a couple of Islamic terrorists. In fact, as a well-known Fred fact states, when a terrorist finally does meet the 72 women, he discovers they are not actually virgins. Why? Because of Fred.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Why is he not the front runner?
The Fred! has all the best answers and positions.
SimplyKimberly on January 14, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Correct…..then like any consumer choice, people can then choose to live in a State that might permit the killing of innocents. That is the idea behind the 10th Amendment. States rights that create ideas, values, and beliefs and then the people choose to support those ideas, values, and beliefs or go somewhere that does.
I love being in AZ…..California keeps getting further and further left and AZ will eventually reaps the rewards of their mistakes when business and people flee California for more freedoms.
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 3:04 PM
The next judge Fred appoints will be his first. Rudy appointed judges in a city where even the dog catcher is an ardent Democrat. He did not appoint liberal or conservative judges, because that dichotomy is irrelevant for the positions involved. He appointed paper pushing bureaucrats without any Constitutional interpretation authority. Sure most were Democrats — as were most qualified lawyers willing to serve. However, the Republican party actually praised him at the time for not appointing judges that had direct connections with the Democrat Party. But don’t let facts get in your way. Keep deflecting attention away from the fact that Fred is pro-choice.
tommylotto on January 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Not our fault that you claim to know better than an organization who has done more research on the subject than you will do in your entire life as a lawyer. Oh, had to throw in that little lawyer bit since you’ve recently been lamenting Fred being one.
MadisonConservative on January 14, 2008 at 3:06 PM
The New York Republican Party…..Oh my gosh! I stand corrected. If the NY RINOS liked Rudy then he got my vote now. Fred is dead…….NOT!
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Fred tried to re-define the leader/follower psychology. He thought that if you are a true conservative and calmly state the facts people will gravitate towards. Instead, people want to hear passion. It’s idiotic, but one man can’t change the expectations that are partially genetic and partially conditioned by the existing political process.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 3:08 PM
didnt i read somewhere about the NY repubs endorsing Fred??
stlpatriot on January 14, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Well, I hope you believing that makes you feel better about supporting him, but that is not what Fred said on Meet the Press. He expressly stated that he was against criminal sanctions against physicians.
tommylotto on January 14, 2008 at 3:08 PM
When Conservatives attempt to please the left by giving in to their values, ideas, and demands; we are killing the true basis of the Republican Party and the Reagan movement. IE…..Tommylotto’s theories.
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 3:10 PM
azcop on January 14, 2008 at 3:04 PM
someone gets it…
Fred!!
stlpatriot on January 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM
First of all I think there have been and will be plenty of medical advances that have saved untold numbers of lives and this is good.
But I also feel that it is not the responsibility of any government to cure disease.
If you want to give all your money to the aids foundation or Lung assoc., knock yourself out.
You can spend 100% of all the wealth in the world on curing disease and you still won’t keep people from dieing.
In fact at the end of the day the death rate will ultimately catch up to the birth rate. Ask any T-Rex.
TheSitRep on January 14, 2008 at 3:14 PM
The point I’m making is that back in Tennessee, when Fred is asked on the state level what the law should be in Tennessee, Fred would vote pro-choice with restrictions. He said as much in prior campaigns and in this campaign on MTP. So, he is a pro-choice federalist, just like Rudy — just that Rudy is honest.
tommylotto on January 14, 2008 at 3:14 PM
I’m against criminal sanctions against the few of you who purposely come in to bash Fred on the same argued-over issues for the 328th time. I think hate that you do it.
Fred can still hate abortion by the same token. Get my meaning yet, Mr. Litigator?
MadisonConservative on January 14, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Then I expect you to mail that Fortitude of the Day award back to me post haste.
ChrisM on January 14, 2008 at 3:16 PM
He continues to impress.
Metro on January 14, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Fred is awesome.
Hendo on January 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Dude.
Dude.
Big S on January 14, 2008 at 3:24 PM
OK, I’m posting in haste. The Fortitude award is in the mail. I hope the post office can do something useful with that “ChrisM” I scribbled on the letter.
Igor R. on January 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM
They know where I live.
ChrisM on January 14, 2008 at 3:29 PM
“No doubt, the valuable assistance Sen. Thompson provided during the confirmation of our new, excellent Chief Justice both confirmed and deepened his understanding of the importance of good judges. And, once again, Sen. Thompson’s clear statement of “principles” justifies our confidence: “A free and independent judiciary that interprets the law by adhering strictly to legal text and respects its limited role in our system of government is essential to our security and freedom, and we need judges who understand that role if we are to preserve our republic and freedom.”
Finally, this last statement adds texture to Sen. Thompson’s firm, consistent, multi-faceted commitment to the dignity of human life, which has earned the respect and endorsement of a wide range of pro-life groups and individuals. Some might wonder whether Sen. Thompson’s pro-life views are in tension with his limited-government principles. They are not. Quite the contrary, in fact. At the end of the day, no political community can be what ours aspires to be if it excludes children in the womb entirely from the law’s protection. Even a limited government limits private violence. Putting aside the merits of the moral question, though, there exist few greater insults to the freedom-protecting structural features of our Constitution than the Supreme Court’s gross and arrogant overreaches in the Roe and Casey decisions. Only a presidential candidate who sees — as Sen. Thompson does — these rulings for what they are can, at the end of the day, be taken seriously as a friend of ordered liberty through limited government.”
Richard W. Garnett
Associate Professor of Law
Notre Dame Law School
RushBaby on January 14, 2008 at 3:32 PM
flyfisher on January 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM
wow
maverick muse on January 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM
stlpatriot on January 14, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Conservative endorsement
maverick muse on January 14, 2008 at 3:37 PM
his Freudian slip typo
maverick muse on January 14, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Dude… read the article:
There is no cure for Polio or smallpox- only vaccines to prevent getting the disease, and then only because neither virus mutates the way the influenza or HIV does.
The reason they offer flu shots every year isn’t because they wear off in 12 months, but because they don’t know which strain is going to spread, with different strains requiring different vaccines. It usually starts in Asian countries, and based on what strain hits there they vaccinate accordingly.
The same problem presents itself for developing an HIV vaccine- you vaccinate against one strain, and another mutation pops up rendering it useless.
A viral disease like rabies can be cured by vaccinating between the time of exposure and the time symptoms start, but like all viral diseases once you got it, you got it. There is no actual cure for any of them.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Was Reagan a lawyer, lobbyist and congress-critter also?
Chakra Hammer on January 14, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Worse, he was a democrat.
MadisonConservative on January 14, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Spare me the lecture on virology; your assertion that AIDS research isn’t worth it due to rapid mutations in the virus betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. My point is not that the diseases are going to be easily curable, just that it’s worthwhile to pursue treatments such as vaccines and via the use of other methods. Various governments (including our own) have been extremely important in providing support to research in academic labs, which has, in turn, been instrumental in the development of such treatments. Much of the basic research that goes on in such environments is focused on problems that are not good targets for profit-motivated drug companies. Taking away government funding from disease research is a bad idea.
Big S on January 14, 2008 at 4:15 PM
zing!
geckomon on January 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Big S those are preventative vaccinations, not cures. Those are also non-enveloped viruses, unlike AIDS. Vaccination against enveloped viruses is a vastly more difficult proposition. Also, the mutation rate on AIDS is occurring faster than any research can react to, similar to the problem with the common cold. The good news is that AIDS seems to be slowly mutating to less lethal forms.
But for now, three-phase behavior modification is the most effective weapon: abstinance, fidelity, and protection. I know how how un-PC the first two are, but those countries in Africa who are beginning to get a handle on the disease are finding that educational program the most effective. I’ve been to Uganda and seen it in action.
michaelo on January 14, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Unfortunately, it appears in the U.S. in 2008, it also means he isn’t going to be elected. Therefore, the pandering will continue.
bburridg on January 14, 2008 at 4:24 PM
I’m not suggesting eliminating funding completely, but after over 20 years and many billions spent on a completely preventable disease, what do we have to show for it? The spending on AIDS research is completely out of proportion to the the number of people in the US who are affected- especially considering that there’s almost no possibility of a cure in the near future no matter how much money we throw at the problem.
Hollowpoint on January 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
I am befuddled as to why people have a problem with the first two.
It’s like saying “You can’t tell me to not put a gun to my head and pull the trigger because I have a right to do anything I want.”
And then when they get injured or killed someone whines that not enough government research dollars went into finding out how this could have been prevented.
geckomon on January 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Impetuous youth resent and berate traditional reserve.
Liberals scream the loudest.
Liberals parade as “moderates” to pollute the word.
Sects reliant on attendance/financing have self interest.
The MSM dictatorship has the most to lose.
Like the neighborhood weary of the obscene all-night every night next door neighbor trolls, Republicans are waking to their GOP rights as voters. It will be in the vote tally of all 50 states that the party’s voice will be found. The Conservative Republican Platform candidate is Fred Thompson.
An earlier commenter linked to Fred Thompson’s recent address to voters in Mt. Pleasant, S.C.
The Fred recalls President Lincoln’s integrity, character, courage, and common sense. Fred sees the silver lining around the nay-sayers’ cloud. Fred remains optimistic with hope for the next generation of Americans that this year voters will choose according to policy/record, not according to deceitful disinformation. Unlike others in the political campaign, Fred has his cards on the table. Fred is willing to sacrifice popularity for what is right because in the end that is always what is best for America, to do what is wise for the long term goal rather than succumb to short term liberal or populist deterents like chasing rabbits down the wrong path.
Fred understands relationships in today’s world. Populism with all of its gloss is the wide path leading us into the liberal socialist state. Now is the time for Republicans to vote for the party’s heart and soul with the moral courage to do the right thing. Ask yourself what the government should be doing in your life and how the government should be involved in your house. If the government should be involved, choose between local and federal the level you want the government officiating in your personal life with your personal income.
Fred Thompson’s leading statesmanship and party platform deserve respect and American value votes.
maverick muse on January 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM
I just turned twenty-five, and I resent that remark.
MadisonConservative on January 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Madison, I’ve got socks older than you; may even be wearing them. Learn to appreciate being an impetuous youth; it sure beats being a crusty old coot.
michaelo on January 14, 2008 at 4:48 PM
I assume that means you think you could refute each point if necessary…
tommylotto on January 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM
It would be easy to do but why bother. People with closed minds don’t open them to facts.
duff65 on January 14, 2008 at 4:54 PM
All these fights, over everyone’s favorite candidate/s amount to nothing, or not much. We should all follow the advice of a very smart lady
Entelechy on January 14, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Wish my Fred08 stuff would get here already.
Buttercup on January 14, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »