Posted on 11/18/2007 1:04:17 PM PST by Josh Painter
Watch the full interview here.
Mind you, I don't want him to become another Romney - but it would be good to verbally pick up the pace. Fair or not, he needs to overcome the perceptions being painted of him, and his talking style doesn't help.
Another thing that would help him is if, when shmucks like Steponallofus bring up the executive experience dig, to point out that you have to point things in the right direction first. With tax increases, calls to cancel elections (Rudy), and pandering to illegals, Rudy Rombee has/have executed government to the detriment of the long-term health of their jurisdictions.
Bingo! This nitpicking on every little detail that Fred says or doesn't say is just nutty. It wouldn't be nutty if there was a candidate out there that could actually pass this test being applied to Fred so we could say to Fred, sorry your good but Joe Blow over there is perfect....sayanora!
Hunter is the only other option for Fredheads and the would be anti-Hunters (if he was polling well) haven't even begun to get into Duncan details.
Well, if Fred isn’t even willing to say that he thinks what happened was wrong. How can we trust him to do anything to prevent something like this from happening again. Basically, Fred doesn’t seem willing to spend any political capital on protecting life. We need a William Wilberforce not wishy washy Fred.
McGruff, it was a joke..
Go here you’ll see the source. Now he’s serious...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927056/posts?page=182#182
I guess that is why the NRTL endorsed him, because he doesn't want to protect life../s
Oy Vey...
Can anyone seriously think the puke would have asked the Rodham-rodent even one of the things Steffie asked Fred? I can hear it now, Steffie asks the Rodent, "Can you name for us any leadership you've " BLAM. 'Clean the set! Get someone alive up here, NOW!' ...'Yes, missy Clinton, yessum.'
Thanks for the ping. Great interview as Fred headed George off at every pass.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And the Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That makes a pretty clear case that Fred was right and it is up to the courts. Terry Schiavo did get "due process" in that there was a hearing before a judge and appeals, actually all the way to the Supreme Court. Some of that wouldn't have happened without what Congress did and that's why I think they were right to do what they did, but she did have due process.
I happen to think the decision was wrong and that the main Florida judge is a corrupt person in thrall to the Scientologists, who really pushed the whole thing based on their principle of getting rid of "useless eaters." But Fred is still right on this one as a matter of law.
I also think that these sections should apply to the unborn as I consider them living humans. That would solve the abortion argument pretty quickly if every woman had to get a court ruling in order to get an abortion it would cut out the "convenience" abortions (abortion as birth control) and limit it to cases where it was an issue that needs some justification. I can appreciate medical abortions (where a decision has to be made between the life of the mother and the life of the child) and it would mean most abortions would probably end up being that type.
(Oh, am I going to get flamed from all sides for this post!)
I'm sorry, but it is impossible to have received due process when a) you were never charged with a capital crime, and b) you were never tried on a capital offense in front of a jury of your peers, and c) that you were never convicted and sentenced for a capital crime.
The fact that her case was heard in front of a probate judge, who summarily issued a literal death warrant against an uncharged, untried, unconvicted, innocent citizen of Florida and of the United States, does not equal due process in any way that has anything to do with what the Fifth Amendment means or was intended to do.
I was reading your original snarky post and was mentally composing the flame, then progressing to the note I'd put in the abuse message, but when I got to the end I had this sneaking suspicion that this was the case and held off to read further in the thread. I'm glad I did.
By the same token there were some nasty folks on the Sunday thread a few weeks ago who were attacking any and all who didn't bow down before all that is Fred. I suspected some of them may have been trolls trying to start arguments, but don't think all were. I'm a Fredhead, I guess, but I will support most of the Republican candidates if they get the nomination, many of them actively. The exceptions are Ron Paul and, increasingly, Huckabee, particularly after his performance on FNS today. He came away as very Clintonian. Shudder.
You don’t have to be charged or convicted of a capital crime and the amendments don’t say that you do. It does say that you shall not be deprived of life without due process. It doesn’t state that the only possible path to that conclusion is a conviction for a capital crime. A court could rule that it means that, but none has. In fact the courts have stated that it doesn’t, including in this case. That’s called due process. You (and I) can disagree with their decisions but it is due process.
That’s what’s called the rule of law.
he did a great job, but I couldn’t go through the whole thing without saying something about Georgie. What a total disgrace. ABC is a disgrace for hiring this democratic operative as a supposed journalist. The only good thing is that Fred got a chance to “debate” the democrats, because George was interrupting and acting just like Bill Clinton. If the same treatment were given Hillary or Obama..no prob, but we all know what THAT kind of give and take is. Diamonds or pearls, Hillary?
Unlike Jeb Bush, I can read, you see.
Florida Constitution
Article One, Section Two
Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
Using your definition of due process, what’s to prevent some tinpot local elected probate judge from treating YOU like property and ordering your torture death-by-dehydration?
Do you think your rights are superior to Terri Schindler Schiavo’s? Why are your’s unalienable, and hers were not?
Do you think your rights are superior to Terri Schindler Schiavo’s? Why are your’s unalienable, and hers were not?
I don't think my rights are superior, but my medical condition is certainly superior to what hers was. It's a silly argument.
And if you read my post you will notice that I disagreed with the decision in the Schiavo case, but I respect the rule of law. I also feel that if someone feels strongly enough about something, as you apparently do, then they should have the courage of their convictions and take extra legal action to try to affect the outcome. Then, of course, you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions or be labeld a coward (or a terrorist if you're extreme enough).
I don't feel that certain of my own understanding of the situation to take such action in the Schiavo case. I can imagine circumstances that may not have been apparent to me where it was the right decision, so I couldn't see taking action. I have participated in such "extra legal" actions, namely protests that could have resulted in my being arrested, on several issues, including civil rights when I was a child, Vietnam war protests in my adolescence (I wanted a Green Beret war, go in train our friends, give them weapons, provide support but don't make it our war) and abortion protests more recently. I was prepared to suffer those consequences in those cases.
As I’m not familiar with the Florida constitution I didn’t touch that and only addressed the US Constitution, on which I think you’re wrong in the way you’ve framed your argument, though again not on how I feel the decision should have come down.
You may well be right on the Florida constitution, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Florida courts disagreed and that constitutes due process. The fact that the Florida constitution doesn’t use the phrase “due process” in this clause may be an argument, but the courts didn’t find that. It would be interesting to find out if any of the lawyers arguing the case raised that argument.
Sure you are. I posted the entire relevent portion. You need to get over the idea that only lawyers are allowed to interpret the plain words of our foundational legal documents.
Such an attitude is fit for slaves, not for free men and sovereign citizens.
Fred does have Reagan’s gift of the one liner. Very effective.
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
You mean this?
"No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law..."
And this?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
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.