Posted on 09/15/2007 5:46:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Slow Start? What planet are these guys from?
Its Newsweek. If they EVER publish a positive article about any GOP member other than McCain let me know..... ;-)
I wish Fred Thompson would demonstrate maybe half the enthusiasm and excitement about his own candidacy that folk here on FR do.
I'm his ideological soul-mate, more or less, but jeez I'm so far underwhelmed.
“Slow Start? What planet are these guys from?”
Nothing more than a poor attempt to redirect from the Hillary debacle.
Why am I a “social conservative”, when what I care about is an electable candidate who has a good 2A record and position?
These guys are idiots. Fred is in the lead after a week of campaigning, after declaring. If that’s a “Slow Start”, I’ll take some more.
The President plays absolutely no role in the Constitutional Amendment process.
So why do these mental wizards care what Thompson’s view is on a given pie-in-the-sky amendment that will never be ratified?
“I’m so far underwhelmed”
Anyone in the field above 2% in the polls that is overwhelming you?
I thought one poll still had him behind Guiliani by quite a bit....ABC or something?
Still, I recall another poll with him ahead and in first place.
Click on the link “Fred Thompson” and read the threads if you want a different picture of Fred and his “enthusiasm” about his candidacy. Then click this: https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791
Thanks!!
Yeah, busting onto the scene as the front-runner in the polls following your announcement is such a slow start. Thompson should just withdrawal now. The again this is “News”week. This sort of idiocy is be expected.
Who appointed Weyrich and his Arlington Group the kingmakers? Conservative "leaders" shouldn't be so eager to diss conservative candidates to the liberal press.
norwaypinesavage wrote: “Slow Start? What planet are these guys from?”
Planet “Liberal”
The issue belongs to each state to decide and the "backing a broader amendment that would bar states from imposing their laws on other states." - meaning that if a state allows gay marriage, and another doesn't = gay ' marriages' from one state cannot be imposed as legal in one that does not.That's a whole different thing than this cr*p piece trying to imply he's not against same sex marriage.
He's for returning our rights to us in our own states, folks. He's for us being able to have a say in our states, not for the Federal Gov't deciding for us. Have we become so used to and dependent on the Federal Gov't (unlawfully) nullifying our States Rights that we can't see the Forest for the trees?
Read news stories not only between the lines, but for the lines left out.
States Rights mean not cherry picking which laws we want to decide for ourselves and which we want Big Daddy Washington to decide for us = it means we take the RIGHT and the RESPONSIBILITY for making our own state laws...The question is, are we grown up enough to do it? Do we really want our Constitutional Freedoms back? This may be our one last shot
Guess not, just more fun to trash and b!tch eh?
Sadly, no.
I'd love to be seduced too. And I'm pretty easy.
From where I sit here in New Hampshire nobody sets my heart a twitter.
Personally, I think this is a much better idea. I don not support gay marriage, not at all, I don't even like civil unions. With that said, I don't think the Constitution should ban it. I think Fred is right on the money with this idea. Those weirdo states that want to have gay marriage, let them have it, but don't bring it to a state that says "hell no!".
I also disagree about the federal marriage amendment issue - we need a standard national policy on such nonsense as the existence of "marriage" between anyone other than a man and a woman that is not vulnerable to activist liberal judges. A state-protective amendment may work for those states that don't want it, but leaving policy on the federal level open will eventually result in tax policy and other govenmental give-aways that favor homosexual relationships. If I read it correctly, an FMA would do the same thing as DOMA, protecting the separate rights "reserved for the states" and allow those that want it to nail their own coffins, but would also vaccinate the government at the national level from ever granting such rights to unnatural couples.
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.