Fred Thompson addresses the RNC tonight…
Here’s a few excerpts;
“Some Washington pundits and media big shots are in a frenzy over the selection of a woman who has actually governed rather than just talked a good game on the Sunday talk shows and hit the Washington cocktail circuit. Well, give me a tough Alaskan Governor who has taken on the political establishment in the largest state in the Union — and won — over the beltway business-as-usual crowd any day of the week.”
…
“Now, being a POW certainly doesn’t qualify anyone to be President.
But it does reveal character.”
…
“To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history making nominee for president.
History making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history making, Democrat controlled Congress. History making because it’s the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation’s history.”
…
“They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the “other” side of the bucket! That’s their idea of tax reform.”
…
“We need a President, and Vice President, who will take the federal bureaucracy by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking. And we need a President who doesn’t think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade.”
…
I urge you to read the whole speech, but to really get a feel of what Thompson said and how he said it, you have to watch it. It was truly impressive. I’ll post the video here when I find it.
Palin/Thompson in 2016!
UPDATE: The complete Fred Thompson speech at the RNC 2008
KevinB: “but please – the man’s an actor”. Yes, but what was he before he was an actor? There is true substance to Fred Thompson…dismissing him as an actor is ignorant foolishness. Check out his resume.
Alex: You say that both the old and new testaments are filled with abhorrent things (presumably based on your personal reading of them) and then you give examples ONLY from the old testament…completely without context, too. Please, if you have read the old and new testament (as I have, multiple times), then provide examples from the new testament that are not beacons of morality. I’m fairly confident that whatever example you provide can be shown to be taken out of context.
Read it carefully before you criticize what it says. Otherwise it is just blind ignorance.
Alex said: they might try to do something really stupid like replacing all sex-ed programs with “abstinence only” nonsense, outlawing abortion, or creating a federal mandate to teach “intelligent design” in science classrooms
As an atheist I would certainly share your concerns, but there is no concern. The Pres/VP simply do not have the power to legislate that sort of thing. Congress could try I suppose, but the Supremes would quickly kill such an attempt, and a good majority of Congresscritters would not support it anyway.
The only way to bring about such things would be a Constitutional Amendment. This is a very difficult process and the odds of it happening are 0. They can’t even get any enthusiasm for an amendment to define that a marriage is between a man and a woman, even though a clear majority of Americans agree with it.
Go McCain/Palin !
“Who’s equivocating?’
You equivocated fundamentalist Islamic violence with “Religion is a great way to get people who are otherwise good and intelligent do do things which are evil and stupid.”
“Religion” in this case being Christianity which, for some irrational reason, you have a vile hate-on towards.
As for your ‘summary’ of the Bible and the relationship between the OT and NT, you obviously haven’t read it, or can’t comprehend it, as Eeyore pointed out.
Regardless, nothing less would be expected from a rabid and fundamentalist athiest. Odd how one often becomes the thing they most hate.
Skip, I just saw your comment: Gellen, you’re not helping. Evolution certainly is a scientific theory, (real theory, not some flippant hypothesis -learn the difference). Gov Palin’s position isn’t creationist; she endorses the teaching of competitive viewpoints,
No. 1 – I’m not helping. Ouch, My humble apologies.
No. 2 – Evolution CERTAINLY IS a scientific theory. My challenge to you is: Prove it.
No. 3 – Gov Palin’s position isn’t creationist; she endorses the teaching of competitive viewpoints. My reply to you is: So do I. It is actually the evolutionists who have banned “competitive viewpoints”. (Which, I humbly suggest, you know.)
I am puzzled at how the “enlightened” athiests posting here can add 1 + 1 and get 27. Teaching abstenance doesn’t mean that they don’t teach about sex and reproduction. It is mearly telling the kids that the only sure 100% method of birth control is abstenance. The “enlightened” folk also fear that someone who believes in God and Christ will somehow shove it down their throats.
The fact is that in the last eight years there has been more bending over backwards by government to appease the whiners who take offence to anything. Things like holiday trees, winter festival, changing a city logo because it has a cross on it even if the city logo is hundreds of years old. Or old statues and plaques with the ten commandments have been targeted. All has been done with GWB at the helm in the US.
And lest we think we are any better than our souithern cousins: Cap badges of military Chaplin corps having to change, prime ministers dictating that chaplins cannot refer to God at memorial services (Swissair 111), all this stuff and gay marriage too.
So Palin and McCain go to church, big deal. I don’t personally care one way or the other but I will tell you this: They go to church because they believe, not for the photo op. Can you say the same about Crouton or Martinno?
Our countries have been built on Judeo-Christian principles and after a few hundred years, they haven’t turned out all that bad.
Well said, Texas Canuck. Points that should be obvious, once the rational turbo charger is properly affixed to the brain.
Thanks, Texas Canuck. Like irwin daisy says, well said.
It’s true: the Judeo-Christian values upon which all of our Western democracies have been built–through the sacrifice, blood, sweat, and tears of our forbears–haven’t turned out all that bad.
We turn our backs on them at our peril.
“Eeyore”: Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize there was a context in which turning your virgin daughters over to be raped by a mob would be a GOOD thing. Can you explain that one to me? Contextualize it a bit?
While you’re thinking about that, enjoy some quotes from the new testament, as per your request:
Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Collosians 3:5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
Collosians 3:6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience
Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire
Of course, the very idea of sending people to hell for not believing in your nonsense is in itself immoral, and the Bible is FULL of that. But you’re right, the New Testament isn’t as bad as the old. That doesn’t make it good, though, and it’s irrelevant anyway since the Christian church still clings to the validity of the Old Testament.
“Randall G”: I certainly hope you’re right. I know that the president can’t legislate such matters, but he certainly can influence congress, and has certain legislative powers when it comes to passing bills.
“Irwin”: No.
“Texas Canuck”: I’m not suggesting that abstinence and sex-ed are mutually exclusive – it’s the religious fundies who do that. That’s why they call it “Abstinence only education”, and not “Abstinence advocacy and sexual education”. If you want to tell kids not to have sex, go for it. I think it’s an exercise in futility, but you’re welcome to waste your breath. Just don’t stop us from teaching them the things they need to know if they DO decide to have sex.
As for our country being built on Judeo-Christian values … so was Nazi Germany. Does the phrase “Gott mit uns” ring a bell? You’re mistaking correlation with causation, which makes a farce of your attempt at making a reasoned argument.
Gosh, Alex…a bit vitriolic, aren’t you? Please give the chapter and verse for the raping the virgin daughters bit and I’ll try to get back to you.
Regarding Colossians 3:22 – Does it say “it is good to be slaves”? It doesn’t. Slavery was a fact of life 2000 years ago…as a Christian, you are instructed to submit to the government, to your masters, to God…your earthly body is just a shell that will be cast off…it is your soul/spirit that matters. Paul didn’t condone slavery…he acknowledged its existence. What did you want it to say? “Slaves, cast off your chains and kill your master”? Hardly meek and loving, is it.
Regarding Colossians 3:5, Paul is speaking figuratively about a believer “killing” his/her evil WAYS…not killing evil people. And 3:6 is talking about GOD inflicting the wrath…because 3:8 tells Christians to not be bad, but be good. You are reading it out of context.
Regarding Jude 1:7, again Jude is pointing out that GOD will inflict the punishment, not the believer.
Christians are to be the living example of Christ on earth and be meek, loving, kind, forgiving. And that is what the New Testament teaches completely and absolutely.
All your quotes are taken out of context. If you’ve got a problem with God passing judgment, then take it up with God, not the Christians. To put it in perspective, you are an ant who has a problem the kid with the magnifying glass but takes out his anger on the other ants.
To explain the old testament would take too long and I highly doubt you’d try to understand anyway.
I’m not a practicing Christian anymore, so I don’t care what you believe…but please don’t exhibit your ignorance so brazenly, its embarrassing for you.
Sorry Kate…off-topic, I know.
Ah, I see. So your idea of morality is that instead of telling people not to own slaves, we should tell slaves to behave themselves.
Makes perfect sense!
Sorry, wrong answer. If you’d have shown yourself to be a reasonable individual, perhaps we could have continued this. As it is, it’s clear that you’ll perform any feat of mental gymnastics required to justify your beliefs, and I’m just not interested in hearing your excuses.
Oh, and the quote you requested? Judges 19:
22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
He then goes on to talk about the man killing and carving up his concubine into 12 pieces. Some awesome moral guidance there.
As I said, I’m really not interested in your excuses, but I’m wondering how you’re going to “contextualize” this one. Should be good for a laugh.
Oh and I loved the “kid with a magnifying glass” analogy 🙂
Just to correct you a bit:
My problem is with the kid with the magnifying glass. My problem is with the ants who insist that they can talk to the kid with the magnifying glass, that his will has been put down in a crappy set of books, and that he will come and burn me if I don’t do what those books say.
Maybe ants can believe such ridiculous things, but no rational human being can.
Thanks for the laughs, though 🙂
Gee, Alex, it took a while but you managed to invoke Godwin’s Law. I never said that ALL countries based in a Jude-Christian values turn out perfect and actually your Uncle Adolf isn’t exactly representative of all of German history.
There are more democracies with a J-C background than say, Islamic ones.
I see that the bit about correlation vs. causation went right over your head. Somehow I’m not surprised.
You know, I’d really like to be able to go more than a few comments without having to either insult you or just give up in disgust … but it’s so goddamn difficult when you don’t even seem to comprehend what I’m saying. I’d like to believe that I’m not surrounded by mental midgets, but you’re making it REALLY difficult.
For the record, I KNOW that you weren’t saying that “ALL countries based in a Jude-Christian values turn out perfect”. I wasn’t suggesting that that’s what you were saying. What I was saying is that you’ve taken a correlation – the fact that the US happens to be largely Christian – and assumed that it’s a causation, that it CAUSED the prosperity of the US.
That IN ITSELF is a logical fallacy. Just like it would be a logical fallacy if I stated that Nazi Germany turned out the way it did because it was based on Judeo-Christian values. Or if I were to notice that many dictators happen to have mustaches, and therefore conclude that their mustaches make them evil. That would be me assuming an invalid causation.
Are you getting the picture yet? Do you see why comments like your earlier one are invalid?
Alex, as I suspected, you aren’t interested in discussing or debating. You’ve already made your mind up and no amount of discussion is going to change that.
You are quite wrong in your views, but I don’t care. Flame away in ignorance. In case no one has told you lately, you’re an ignorant a**hole.
Yeah, the Muslims also think that I’m an ignorant a**hole 🙂 Thanks for the compliment.
Oh, it’s not just the Muslims, Alex. And you’re welcome.