For those who say Fred Thompson is anti-gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't believe a word that comes out of Thompsons mouth. He may very well have wrote that nice little diddy, but we have voting records that conflict with this writing.

Ron Paul has MORE than a snowballs chance in hell of winning, he is a canidate that is receiving bi-partisan support. Growing up in New York I have a lot of friend who are hard core Democrats, but they're totally on board with Ron Paul.
 
I think he just misspoke Sistema. Why don't you hop on board with the rest of us who want our conuntry back and come on in for the big win.


;)
 
Hey Redneck, what do you like best about Fred?

Limiting free speech with Campaign Finance Reform?

Expanding welfare with the Medicare prescription drug program?

Increasing the size and obtrusiveness of federal governement with the Patriot Act?
 
Hey Redneck, what do you like best about Fred?

Limiting free speech with Campaign Finance Reform?

Expanding welfare with the Medicare prescription drug program?

Increasing the size and obtrusiveness of federal governement with the Patriot Act?
Click to expand...

Or how about the Lautenberg Act?


You cheerleaders are pathetic. All you care about is being on the "winning team":barf:
 
Since Ron Paul has ZERO chances of winning, he'll be eliminated by September, give me an alternative? Sure, Ron Paul can "change" the content of the debate, big deal. Thompson is definitely a better choice over Guliani, McCain, or Romney. He has far more charisma and camera presence than those clowns, plus he is much better spoken. Even without your votes, Thompson will trounce Guliani, McCain and Romney. I believe, that when faced with Hillary or Obama, people will get behind Thompson in droves. God help us all if Hillary or Obama get elected. You people seem to be willing to accept a Hillary or Obama presidency, insted of voting for Thompson.:barf: I also believe that Thompson will eat Hillary alive in a debate, Obama would be more of a challenge, because he is also very charismatic and well spoken. I'm not throwing away my vote on a right wing "fringe" candidate.:neener:

I will say that I very much agree with Duncan Hunter on 95% of the issues, I would like to see him make it. However, he is firmly in the 2nd tier and I don't see him breaking out. If Duncan became a front-runner, then he would have my vote. When faced with Guliani, McCain, Romney, or Thompson, I have no qualms about voting for Thompson.

Personally, I don't really care what his votes were on the Patriot Act, Medicare, yada, yada, yada. These are not top tier issues for me. I care about the 2nd Ammendment, Iraq, our borders, and keeping taxes low.

Now go ahead and rip me apart.:neener:
 
I'm plenty smart and well versed on politics and the candidates. I'm entitled to my views and belief's, you don't have to insult them. I don't put much stock in all these people digging up dirt on Thompson, they obviously have an agenda. Maybe its keeping Guliani the front runner, maybe they feel very threatened by a Thomspon campaign.:neener:
 
The attacks against Ron Paul become more lame with every post. Let’s review:

1) “He can’t win.: Well, no he can’t, not with that attitude. Many of us think he CAN win but it is somewhat besides the point at this stage because Paul is the type of politician who will have a huge impact in favor of limited govt. conservatism AND 2ND A rights regardless of whether he wins or not. Barry Goldwater and George Wallace didn’t win either but they made hard line conservatism possible in this country.
2) “He doesn’t have a foreign policy.” It is not often that folks proudly put forward their own ignorance on a subject as a debating point. Of course the man has a foreign policy which he has laid out in detail in numerous articles and speeches. Why he even has a book out on the subject. http://www.mises.org/store/Foreign-Policy-of-Freedom-A-P359C0.aspx?AFID=1
3) “Many of his supporters today only agree with his foreign policy but they are really leftists and are not true conservatives.” Paul has shown in 30 years of public service that he is beholden to no one but only to his principles, foremost among them the maximizing of FREEDOM. I could care less if someone supports Paul because they like his haircut (although I doubt that the good Dr.--unlike Edwards and his $400 cuts--spends more than $12 on a haircut.)

_________________________________________________________

www.ronpaul2008.com

Two fantastic Austrian weapons:

One is mechanical: http://www.glock.com/

The other is intellectual: Austrian Economics www.mises.org
 
I don't understand all the hostility. I think both Ron Paul and Fred Thompson are much better choices than we usually get in the General Election. I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries, but if Fred wins I will happily vote for him in the general election.

IMHO these two are win-win: I'll be glad to get either of them as the Republican nominee. Let's not burn bridges to the point we can't reunite once the Republican candidate is selected.
 
Voting for someone with charisma over substance is a poor long term strategy for the country. It is very sad that issues like limited government, civil rights, and welfare no longer concern Republican voters, and they pick things like charisma instead. It doesn't matter if the Republican candidate wins, if he is not going to stick to the conservative such as limited government. I would just as soon have a Democrat as I would another Bush-clone.
 
When Ron Paul stops wanting to open our borders up to all, ceasing to believe in nations being an artificial construction that should be abolished, then he'll be a legitimate candidate - and not until. He's hardly Republican to begin with (Republicans have always been nationalist!)

Sell crazy someplace else...
 
When Ron Paul stops wanting to open our borders up to all, ceasing to believe in nations being an artificial construction that should be abolished, then he'll be a legitimate candidate - and not until. He's hardly Republican to begin with
Click to expand...
What??? Those are not Ron Pauls positions. He is for securing our borders, and stopping illegal immigration. He is also for free trade with other nations, Just not being the worlds police.
I do not think Fred is anti 2nd, I just do not see any evidence that he is any more pro 2nd than any of the others that pass more "Reasonable Restrictions". He has too many positions and connections that I disagree with.
 
When Ron Paul stops wanting to open our borders up to all, ceasing to believe in nations being an artificial construction that should be abolished, then he'll be a legitimate candidate - and not until. He's hardly Republican to begin with (Republicans have always been nationalist!)

Sell crazy someplace else...
Click to expand...

What kind of nonsense is this?! Here is Paul's position on immigration:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=516

"Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods."
 
Caimlas said:
When Ron Paul stops wanting to open our borders up to all, ceasing to believe in nations being an artificial construction that should be abolished, then he'll be a legitimate candidate - and not until. He's hardly Republican to begin with (Republicans have always been nationalist!)
Click to expand...
Lets us look at how much Dr. Paul wishes to open the borders and abolish the nation, shall we?

See samtechlan post above...

The "crazy" lies not with Dr. Paul here Caimlas.
 
Last edited:
When Ron Paul stops wanting to open our borders up to all, ceasing to believe in nations being an artificial construction that should be abolished, then he'll be a legitimate candidate - and not until. He's hardly Republican to begin with (Republicans have always been nationalist!)

Sell crazy someplace else...
Click to expand...

Now folks are just making anti-Paul stuff up. A comphensive source for Paul's position on immigration:

"The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked."
Ron Paul, RonPaul2008.com, May 2007

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=5
 
I don't understand all the hostility. I think both Ron Paul and Fred Thompson are much better choices than we usually get in the General Election. I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries, but if Fred wins I will happily vote for him in the general election.

IMHO these two are win-win: I'll be glad to get either of them as the Republican nominee. Let's not burn bridges to the point we can't reunite once the Republican candidate is selected.
Click to expand...

Well put, Silver Bullet. But it I'm afraid it falls on deaf ears with the "My guy and nobody else", absolutists around here.
 
Okay... I'm now thoroughly confused...

What's the beef that some people have with Fred Thompson on here? Does he hold anti- gun positions (other than the Lautenburg amendment- we could debat e that all day)? Has he made numerous efforts to restrict RKBA?

Give me the straight dope. No speculation. I don't want to see "I think" on this thread once.

ETA-


And keep it civil.

Outside of sig links, I don't want to see Ron Paul's name appear, either. We already know his positions. I want to know what Thompson's are. We can debate whether the Good Doctor has a chance at the presidency some other time. Stay on topic.
 
Last edited:
Here is the straight dope. Thompson is pro-gun. Ron Paul is the most pro-gun, pro 2nd A politician of his generation, Period. (Pro-gun is a relative position, one needs a reference point, hence the mention of Paul). But Thompson is better than the Dems.
 
He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He will not receive my vote. Either he, that shall not be named, wins or bring on 1984 before I'm too old to play.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter if the Republican candidate wins, if he is not going to stick to the conservative such as limited government. I would just as soon have a Democrat as I would another Bush-clone.
Click to expand...

Agree. The only way the Republicans are going to change is when they see they aren't winning because so much of their base has had it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Fred Thompson's take.
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
Steelharp
S
BELTFEDJASON
  • Locked
My letter to the editor
Replies
0
Views
360
BELTFEDJASON
BELTFEDJASON
T
  • Locked
Say what you want to about Coulter; she's dead on with this one.
Replies
16
Views
906
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
Mainstream But Not Antigun
Replies
10
Views
533
Zundfolge
Zundfolge
M
  • Locked
Fred Thomson on "gun free zones"
Replies
1
Views
471
BrianB
B
Back
Top