Posted on 04/25/2007 3:52:33 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Few probably would have paid much attention to a mild little essay by Ponnuru taking Fred Thompson to task for votes on a couple of issues that, as even Ponnuru noted, few if any actual voters care passionately about, such as federal pre-emption of state laws and a federal cap on attorney's fees in state tobacco cases. "But if conservatives mean what they say when they complain about the dangerous rapacity of the trial bar," Ponnuru challenged, "they ought to ask Senator Thompson a few hard questions."
Much to everyone's surprise, Fred Thompson quickly dashed off a response, posted on www.nationalreview.com -- a devastating, substantive, smart, wry and above all personal response. For example, on his opposition to a bill that would federally regulate lawyer's fees in tobacco cases: "Get this: Under the amendment the states would have been required to send the attorneys' bills to the House and Senate Judiciary for approval," riffs Thompson. "As I said on the floor on May 19, 1998, 'I did not come to the Senate to review billing records from lawyers in private lawsuits.'
"For the record, I oppose the federal regulation of any fees negotiated by two competent parties at the state and local level. This goes for lawyers, doctors, butchers, bakers, or the occasional candlestick maker ...
"This discussion," Fred Thompson goes on to say, "is not an idle exercise. Republicans have struggled in recent years, because they have strayed from basic principles. Federalism is one of those principles."
It's one of those small incidents that speak volumes. Can you imagine McCain or Giuliani personally debating a senior editor on National Review's Web site? By tearing down the fourth wall, Fred Thompson announced to conservatives, more eloquently than even his words could, that he really is one of us.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Denial? You’re the one in denial. McCain Feingold has loopholes big enough to fly the Spruce Goose through. ROTFLMAOASTC!
To the extent that they have someone speak in tongues in open church, and then someone else translates, and all present accept the spoken words as the words of God Himself, then yes, I’m suggesting that is totally unbiblical. If those are indeed God’s words, then they should be written down so they can be shared with the rest of the world, but in writing them down, they would be guilty of adding to the Bible, which is clearly prohibited. Much of what the Pentecostals teach is right in line with scripture, but on that point, they’re wrong.
This particular writing that was referenced here had the ring of one of these Pentecostal outbursts which can NEVER be verified as to their authenticity. Nostradomus was as believable as those words are.
Fred; YOU GO GUY!!!
Acts 2:4
Fred will spend the month of May getting paid by ABC to get his message out.
I expect Fred to announce in early June.
We have one.
"Islam is a religion of peace."
Illegals are "doing jobs Americans won't do."
Unfortunately, his expressions are not that of a conservative.
43 is 41 with a Texas twang.
“I heard on Fox News last evening that Fred has signed a deal with ABC as a political commentator. If this is true I don’t think there is much chance that he will be running for president.”
Unless his contract states that if he decides to run for president that the deal is off until the election is over.
That one galls me!
Actually, He died about 2000 years ago, and won't be running next year. In His stead, Mr. Thompson will suffice.
Nothing about Acts 2:4 says that they spoke the words of God.
Nothing about it says that they didn't.
COB's First Answer: Nothing about it says that they didn't.
COB's Second Answer: I thought about your comment over the weekend, and realized that my knee-jerk answer was pretty juvenile. My more serious answer is: "I believe the entire Bible to be the inspired Word of God....including that particular verse. I also believe that you are being less than honest with yourself if you pick and chose which verses of the Bible you think should apply to you."
A parallel would be someone who believes in a 'Living Constitution'. You don't want to sit down and play poker with someone who believes like this because they can make the rules up as they go along to fit the hand they are dealt.
I'd recommend that you take a little time and attend one of these churches for a while...it would give you a much better appreciation for their beliefs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.