Fred's first town hall, sort of

Fuller Brushman — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:52:34 GMT

We do not seem to have gone much for genius.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Ted — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:58:20 GMT

Fred is the only viable candidate who can win.

Join the Fred Thompson grassroots.

www.fredthompsonforum.com

Fred's first town hall, sort of

RH Oregon — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:58:28 GMT

Sounds good, state policies on behavior based practices should not translate ot other states having to abide by them. If you can get a majority of your state to go along with it then you got it, if not then you go with the majority.

President Fredrick Thompson, YEA...

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Daniel, New York, NY — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:03:16 GMT

Thompson is showing what kind of candidate he is early. Today, Sen. Inhofe almost endorsed him because of Thompson's skepticism about global warming and its human cause... More information here: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/09/morning-news-roundup-bush-has.html

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Mike S. — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:19:57 GMT

A common-sense conservative wouldn't amend the constitution to prevent gay marriage. Period. What a bastard. He's no Reagan.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Betty, Baltimore, MD — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:23:12 GMT

Um, isn't heterosexual marriage a "behavior-based" practice?

That plan is not Federalism, either. It's insanity.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Nicholas, Minneaps, MN — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:34:23 GMT

First Bush talking about lining his coffers with speaking fees, and Fred here with Law and Order episodes. Combine instances with repub scandals and the party is rapidly losing class.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Kato in Des Moines — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:49:42 GMT

So much for Fred's earlier announcement that "we get our basic rights from God and not from government." I guess now we're getting a clarification from Fred: "If you are heterosexual, you get your basic rights from God; if you are homosexual you get no rights from God -- you only get what the heterosexual majority in your state decides." Thanks for the clarification Fred.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

GAB, Austin, TX — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:52:12 GMT

Isn't beating ones wife a behavior based practice? So if it were legalized in Oregon I guess that would be ok.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

FL — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:57:15 GMT

who cares

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Anne C. Weeki Wachee, FL — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:03:17 GMT

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are not looking for "special treatment" as Thompson so ignorantly states. We are looking for EQUAL treatment under the law....more than 1,049 rights as couples that we are denied.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:10:03 GMT

Be careful people. Once again we are getting caught up in listening to their words and trying to place value in the apparent meaning. Especially after this last six years, we should really have learned to be very skeptical. This one says that and that one says this and we simply try to find meaning in it all and something to reassure us. The truth is that you simply can’t trust anything they say and likely can only find some meaning in their history of actions; then even that can be misleading as they change course to accommodate and attract support with their total focus really being solely on winning. They are all doing it with Fred Thompson, with his recent entry into the activity, currently being the most obvious as he appeases, cultivates and vies for the backing of the George W. Bush Special Interests and influential few. In every way he tries to sound like George, only with more poise, promising more of the same and even now making references to God. Had we only been more deaf to the words and more observant of each individual’s character in 2000 and then again in 2004 possibly things would be different today. I personally can imagine some Christian leaders who are now chastising themselves and begging for God’s forgiveness as they simply recognize how they were manipulated and had just failed to understand that a true sociopath, who completely lacks any conscience but is highly capable of faking anything, is totally unable to ever be a true Christian (with the results seen verifying that). How can we know these things; how can we discern what is the truth? Regrettably there is no easy way and we each have to do it for ourselves, resisting being led by others so that we don’t vote someone else’s choice. The start can be to ignore the rhetoric and seek to understand the real character that comes across to each of us as we view their lives. And to objectively do it, which is the only way it has any meaning, by first setting our own biases aside so they can’t be used to manipulate us (as we have seen done). It is not easy as they are good at what they do, being highly egotistically motivated and then there can be a whole lot of creative, powerful and misleading support behind them. But it is truly important; good luck to us all!

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Anne C. Weeki Wachee, FL — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:11:06 GMT

Hey, FL...

YOU'D care if the government told you that you and the person you loved could not legally protect each other and that your relationship is not valid enough to matter...

Fred's first town hall, sort of

RH Oregon — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:23:15 GMT

Hetrosexual marriage is also based on procreation, that's the genetics of life. Marriage as the promise of fidelity would be a behavior. Even if the fidelity is not always practiced.
I do believe that there should be some kind of 'partnership' 'union of' whatever for alternative relationships. Two commited people in a life long relationship should have say in each others health and welfare, along with inheritance, etc. But it is not marriage as it has been defined for a millenium. Calling it marriage opens up a whole lot of doors people don't talk about, mainly dealing with children, adoption, ect.

GAB. Wife beating there's a good arguement....

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Charles Mana, Saint Louis MO — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:29:18 GMT

All you people wake up. This country is going to have a rovolution. They are pushing the North American Union and the SPP is being used to reinforce it and the people who are implementing these plans are from the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. It will be as bloody as the Civil War. Americans are very mad and the same thing that called out the hidden monster in the American phsyche is in play now. Its coming, a fight is coming and there are millions of middle class Americans ready and eager for the foght because they know that they are right.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Dave, Tn — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:46:49 GMT

Well Kato you need to back a democrat who is in favor of gay marriage. OH wait there aren't any........... It's just something they use against Republicans.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

JengoPop — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:03:15 GMT

I think Fred Thompson can win. Who do you think will win the Republican nomination? Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, maybe Ron Paul? Vote today at http://www.pollicious.com

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Kato in Des Moines — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:19:42 GMT

Dave: You don't get it. None of the democrats are taking away or denying rights to gays. The issue here is one of equal protection. Your favorite son Thompson wants to basically legalize bigotry and render gays to second class citizenship.

Thompson says the federal government should "show no favor for any particular class of citizen" and "not set aside categories for special treatment." But then he finds it okay for the federal government to grant special rights to heterosexual couples (tax benefits, inheritance rights, medical rights, visitation rights, etc.), but it's not okay to grant those same rights to homosexual couples. That's hypocrisy. That's bigotry.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Rufus Gibbons, DCr — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:26:19 GMT

GAB wife beating was once legal in Boston but it was controlled. Some years back an archaic law was removed from the books in Boston which stated "It is illegal to beat your wife with a stick any bigger around that your thumb". Maybe that is how the stepford wives are kept "in their place".

Fred's first town hall, sort of

nuanced — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:42:39 GMT

What are "anti-abortion rights"? Is that an accurate representation of what he said? It makes no sense and the only interpretations I can come up with are very dark and scary.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Dan Taylor — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:04:33 GMT

Fred is all about first principles. His strong American values speak loudly and proudly.

The rest is just details.

He will win decisively.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Thinker in Louisville, KY — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:12:30 GMT

Most of you need to take off the tin foil hats- a "rovolution", eh? Sorry, but a REvolution by people like you isn't scary, it's sad.

Expecting a viable Republican candidate to support gay marriage is like asking a Democrat to support the end of welfare - it's political suicide. At least respect the fact that Thompson is uncomfortable with calling homosexuality a deviance and a disease, as Mr. Bush has had absolutely no problem doing. I'm not saying you should vote for him, but calling him a bastard because he's aware of the political realities is a little much.

Fred's first town hall, sort of

Union Baby, Tennessee — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 03:48:38 GMT

I don't think Thompson's, McCain's, or Rudy's current marriages (and really - it is just living together folks, it is not marriage as defined in the Bible) is any worse than same sex couples living together. If you want to get religion out of the marriage business then let the folks down at city hall say who can get married, sell them a license and let them be on there way - Oh wait , we already do that don't we? So, if you want religion in the marriage business, stop charging the fee for a marriage license, yes, issue one for social security, medicare and to make sure your spouse and children receive your property after your death, but cut out the charge - cause the charge goes to the state, not the church. Then you could let the churches decide who marries and who gets to divorce. That sure would be a big blow to the divorce attorneys and judges, wouldn't it? Like everything else, if it dips into their bank accounts, it will never get changed.