Quantcast

Fred Thompson Mega-Thread (Merged)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by R127, May 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    ...and you base this on what?

    Objections to Paul here have been primarily:

    1. His foreign policy with respect to trade is unrealistic and potentially destructive to the very free trade he wants (and I want).
    2. A return to the Gold Standard would likely be devastatingly destructive in the modern economy.
    3. His foreign policy with respect to the use of the military and his beliefs about the root causes of and solutions to terrorism are naive and could become dangerous (they're a lot like Carter's in the 1970s).

    I sure don't see a lot of posts objecting to Paul based on his domestic pro-freedom stance.
     
  2. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Not a straw man at all. You are just afraid of the answer because you know I speak the truth. So even though you are in denial and won't answer the question I will answer yours anyway.

    I don't do pop quizzes well but since the original GW led troops for the Whiskey Rebellion that would be within eight years.

    What ''frontrunners opposed'' the PA? That is easy: None of them.

    Since we are doing pop quizzes now
    Which candidates opposed the PA who are also pro RKBA?

    Which frontrunners 18 months out have won a presidential election in the last 30 years?

    Since you fear and hate your government so much (you must hate it as it is evil) why do you oppose a candidate that actually is opposed to gathering power for it's own sake and supporting one who is not?

    Government is workable but you have to want it to work.
     
  3. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    Actually, I won't answer that question because I am not an Internet commando. If you think I'm in denial, you know nothing of my origins and the firsthand stories I grew up with, or of me.

    WRT frontrunners I was referring to several people down the list.

    Uh, because I don't agree with him on some pretty major issues. Why not support Kucinich?

    I have not sent any money or done any work for any candidate in this election, yet.

    If I support someone, it will be someone who is pro-RKBA and can beat Obama or Clinton. It will probably be a Republican, because the Democrats control the legislature and because, while it's far from a sure thing, RKBA Supreme Court justices are more likely to come from the right than the left.

    Too "strategic" for the True Believers, sure. But the Libertarian Party, of which I was a member, is an abject failure in politics: we never got enough votes to matter.

    You mean if I wish really, really hard?

    Where we are right now, less government = better government.

    But tell me, Titan, whom would you support? You said he isn't running?

    I'm curious, because I might well like the guy.

    If I wasted my time hating everything in life that's a "necessary evil", I'd have no time left. I'd be mad at sewage, and I'd harbor intense hatred for mowing the lawn or washing dishes. That'd be dumb.

    "Necessary evil" means "something unpleasant that one needs but need not cheer about", and has a very different meaning from, say, a phrase like "the Antichrist."

    This is the antichrist:
    devil.gif

    This is a necessary evil:
    unclesam_congress.gif

    Much different.:D
     
  4. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    I don't want government to work
    I want it to be so busy chasing its own tail that it can't get anything done.


    Jefferson
     
  5. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Chuck Hagel. If you really are a former libby he should really appeal to you. He is certainly electable. He has an ''A'' rating from the NRA. He is guided by the constitution more than others.

    Stories I grew up with? You mean like a Grandmother towing a sled with two sleeping children and all their worldly possessions on it over a hundred miles through the snows of Eastern Germany to escape the communists? Like a Grandfather taken out his sausage factory that he owned and shot in the streets like a dog for ''supporting the war effort'' by making food for people? Yeah I wouldn't know anything about all of that... or maybe I just don't advertise.
     
  6. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    Does Hagel have any plans to run?

    I never denegrated the suffering of your relatives. I merely said that you knew nothing of mine.
     
  7. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Hagel won't say if he is going to run. He is more standoffish than Thompson. I was hopeful earlier this year but don't know.

    If he runs either party or independent I will vote for him. He is the only independent I would vote for. He would have a shot as he appeals to a much broader base. He is in the dog house now because of his opposition to the main stream party authoritarian agenda.

    He does not like being drafted so the movement to draft him is pointless. Sadly he has absolutely no incentive to run, an empty war chest and little party support so if he does go it will only be for the right reasons.


    Despite (because maybe) all of that Oma lived to be 93. When she was 90 she would walk to the store and carry back groceries even though (because maybe) it was a mile away and she had a Mercedes in the garage.
     
  8. Colt

    Colt Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    670
    Location:
    PA
    I see the decision of who to support in 2 parts. First half is the socialism/capitalism. Fred's a step in the right direction there, which is the other way from Hillary/Obama.

    Second part is what could be related to what you describe as "make decisions with their own lives."

    But the 1776 theory applies to that half, too. At the nation's founding, Judeo Christian values guided its creation. Those values have now been all but exterminated from public life and policy. In place of morality, we have moral relativism. In place of values, we have politcal correctness.

    In the absense of (then common) 1776 values, I don't want Paul, or anyone like him. I want a politician who shares my beliefs. A president who will protect the unborn, respect my right to bear arms, and stand up for traditional family values. The Federalism vs States' Rights argument becomes moot when the SCOTUS is ruling on moral issues. Neither camp seems compelled to return these powers to the states, so I'm going to support the candidate who shares my values, and can shape the court. Perfect? Nope. But I'm a realist, not an idealist.

    When moral decisions are taken out of the SCOTUS's hands, we'll talk about consitutional and libertarian candidates. Until then, I'll continue to back social conservatives who oppose socialism.
     
  9. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    That is a very honest answer I can respect. I do not understand why people feel compelled to hide their values these days.

    Given your priorities Thompson is likely a good choice for you.
     
  10. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    Very good!

     
  11. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,489
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    Is it OK to mention in the Fredthread that the one time that Dr. Paul was willing to step outside the bounds of the Constitution was the Partial Birth Abortion Ban?

     
  12. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    It depends how you look at it. Isn't the government, in a sense, there to protect human life?

    It then becomes an issue of what is 'life'.
     
  13. carebear

    carebear Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,373
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    That is a valid point. But the taking of a life is a State government legal issue, not a Federal one.

    Criminal homicides, negligent homicides, justifiable homicides, no homicide needs a Federal law. The killing of any person is the same as the killing of any other and it is and should be up to the states to determine the appropriate definitions and penalties.

    We SHOULD have a patchwork of abortion laws in this country, just as the justification for self-defense varies (as an example) based on the decisions of the citizens of the several states.
     
  14. Alex45ACP

    Alex45ACP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,464
    Location:
    USA
    Not really. They'd cancel each other out.
     
  15. Jamie C.

    Jamie C. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,316
    Location:
    Tennessee... the top, middle part.
    No, it is there to govern and protect the citizens who elected it, or put it into place.

    To say that it's there to protect the unborn is like saying it's there to protect... hell, I dunno... the French? Germans? British? They're all human too, (supposedly. :p ) y'know.

    Leave the "unborn" out of this. They don't get a say, and probably have no "rights", when it comes right down to it.

    Governments exist to "protect" some particular groups of human lives. And which groups is the subject of quite a bit debate.

    J.C.
     
  16. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    Does a child have rights 1 minute after birth?
     
  17. Jamie C.

    Jamie C. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,316
    Location:
    Tennessee... the top, middle part.
    Marshall, for all practical purposes, it doesn't have rights until it can vote, or decide for it's self to live somewhere else.

    That's beside the point, however. For the purposes of the discussion here, no, it doesn't have rights until it is born and sucking air on it's own.

    BTW... I'm not a "right to life" person, so beware of starting a conversation along those lines with me.

    For one, it doesn't belong here, and for two, I might start to question your "right " to life.

    You've been warned. Proceed at your own risk.


    J.C.
     
  18. MrRezister

    MrRezister Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Seems as though some might claim the child has no rights whatsoever until it is issued a social security number. In a while that might be pushed back until he/she is issued a REAL ID number, right?

    I must be young and stupid. That warning sounded exactly like a threat.
     
  19. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    Is that a threat Jamie?


    Why do you disagree with the following statement?

    Children are born with fundamental freedoms and the inherent rights of all human beings.
     
  20. Jamie C.

    Jamie C. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,316
    Location:
    Tennessee... the top, middle part.
    Take it however you please, but proceeding with this line of thought will get this thread locked, and all involved know it.

    If you don't like the means and manner that fact was presented... well, that's another matter.

    The bottom line is that we all know how this is gonna end. To pretend otherwise is just plain stupid.

    And I for one am just straight-up tired of dealing with "stupid".

    J.C.
     
  21. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    By Jamie C
    By Jamie C
    With a quote like you have just typed above, I have no doubt you deal with stupid daily because that was about as stupid as I have witnessed on this site.

    We'll move on.
     
  22. Jamie C.

    Jamie C. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,316
    Location:
    Tennessee... the top, middle part.
    *sigh* If that's how you wanna see it, then be my guest.

    The fact is, I don't think any one of us... you, me, or anybody else... have a "right" to exist. We just do.

    And we're pre-programmed ( how/why we are pre-programmed is yet another conversation... again, not appropriate for here ) to continue that existence... in person, or by proxy. ( Children, genetics, etc. )

    Doesn't make it a right though. Especially since rights are a human invention, designed to justify continued existence, or the fact that one exists at all.

    The fact is, if your existence infringes on mine, I'll do my best to end you. And you'll do the same regarding me. If you say otherwise you're a damned liar, either to yourself, or everyone else. ( If this is not so, why bother with carrying a gun, or any other weapon? Why not just lay down and die, when some other individual would like you to? )


    Now... tell me again how this conversation belongs here?


    J.C.
     
  23. Jamie C.

    Jamie C. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,316
    Location:
    Tennessee... the top, middle part.
    Marshall, you're about to make this personal, and I'm about to take it that way.

    And yeah, I'm used to dealing with "stupid". It comes from being a "Public Servant" for a while...

    Still want to continue?


    J.C.
     
  24. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    OK, we moved on. You made it personal with your threat Jamie.

    Really now? I'm infringing on your mere existence now Jamie. I'm breathing your air. I'm appearing on your computer screen though my type. Are you going to end me Jamie? Or do you mean your right to exist? You obviously think you have that right.
     
  25. Jamie C.

    Jamie C. Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,316
    Location:
    Tennessee... the top, middle part.
    Marshall, don't talk to me anymore. You obviously have no reading comprehension skills, and are looking for fight.


    And no, so far you don't have the ability to compromise my existance or life.

    Luck you. ;)



    J.C.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice