Quantcast

Fred Thompson Mega-Thread (Merged)

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tim James

    Tim James Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Florida
    His first post is also a link to a brand new blog. :scrutiny:

    This site is an example of how good information gets drowned out in obnoxious bias and minor issues are elevated to the extreme so that the reader throws the whole thing out.

    For example, I had no clue what the "Incumbent Protection bill" was until I looked it up and discovered it was the campaign-finance reform thing, which they didn't mention. That's not how you write political articles. If you want to change the bias to your own side, which is fine, you are supposed to include the mainstream term to clarify for your readers.

    As another example, I just looked up and saw the odious Lautenberg amendment was a 97-2 vote, which didn't get mentioned. Looks like these "conservatives" have more problems than just Fred Thompson, but he's the bad guy. Makes me wonder who is behind this site -- libertarians I could understand and that's fine, but maybe it is another Republican group trying to erode Thompson's base?

    Oh well, a few good truths get drowned out in yet another pile of absurd Internet trash.
     
  2. Dravur

    Dravur Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    2,742
    Location:
    Longmont, CO
    What's that old saying...

    Voting for a third party candidate with no chance of winning gets you the far more evil cadidate? Yeah, I think that's it

    oh, and from what I remember, the ConservaticesagainstFT site is a lib site that jsut CLAIMS to be conservative.... they must be scared or sumthin

    I'd say this Myth is BUSTED.
     
  3. xd9fan

    xd9fan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,858
    Location:
    Under tyranny in Midwest
    Its telling when a record like Ron's doesn't get the love from "conservatives"

    Guns are a litmus test on liberty
     
  4. Sry0fcr

    Sry0fcr Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    240
    Location:
    Houston, Republic of Texas
    Yes he did, a few years ago when the story was first reported. He never wrote or reviewed a lot of articles in that newsletter but accepted full responsibility for letting it get to print.
     
  5. pcosmar

    pcosmar member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    954
    Location:
    UP Michigan
    Dravur asked,
    Third party? Oh do you mean like Bloomberg.
     
  6. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,756
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Yep, better to vote for the Ideologically Pure one that has zero chance of winning than vote for the guy you agree with 90% of the time to prevent your enemy from winning.

    LP Logic 101
     
  7. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    IT'S ONLY MY FIRST POST ON A FIREARMS SITE. VOTE FOR RON PAUL OR BE DAMNED!

    [​IMG]
    Troll
     
  8. Dravur

    Dravur Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    2,742
    Location:
    Longmont, CO
    I hope Bloomberg runs!

    I really do. He will siphon off so many of the whacko leftists that the Hiildabeast will have no chance. I hope he runs.

    Cuz, if he is a conservative, then I am a Ballerina....

    one of the notable absences on that blog is therte are several things that are taken out of context and also some of them do not actually say FT voted for/against them. they may be including themt o get guilt by association.
     
  9. BryanP

    BryanP Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,419
    Location:
    Lavergne, TN
    Here's your source.

    I would like to see Ron Paul's response.
     
  10. Thin Black Line

    Thin Black Line Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,213
    Location:
    Amerikan Twilight Zone
    The more I hear from Fred the more he sounds like the same tune we've been
    hearing:

    http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3480959#post3480959

    Once he actually starts running back in this country, someone needs to be
    direct with him and ask: "If you were president and AWBII came across your
    desk, would you sign it?" Are we going to get a George II answer from him now
    or after he's in office?
     
  11. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    South Texas
    You mean the same guy who, only joined by Dennis Kucinich, refused to go along with the House Concurrent Resolution "calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel."

    See the evidence: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll513.xml

    Ron Paul - when he's good, he's VERY good; but when he's bad, he's INSANE.

    Sorry, he's not the guy I want in the Oval Office come 1/20/09. I want someone who doesn't coddle wannabee Hitler-imitators to the point of even being afraid to ask the UN - in a simple concurrent resolution that doesn't have the force of law - to condemn them.
     
  12. Tim James

    Tim James Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Florida
    Quick, guys! There's another thread opening up and someone just commented on "throwing your vote away!" Move the heavy guns and troops to the new thread to continue the battle! :p

    It's amazing that people still bother to post the same old comments sometimes.
     
  13. pcosmar

    pcosmar member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    954
    Location:
    UP Michigan
    BryanP.
    Here ya go.
    http://www.reclaim.org/racist-smear
     
  14. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

    Even so, if he did say that, it's more unPC than wrong.

    EDIT: pcosmar beat me to it.

    And Paul didn't vote for the UN thing because A) it is one step further towards us attacking Iran, which he (and many others) don't want, and B) He doesn't give a crap about the UN and wants to US to get out of it.

    You call that 'evidence' like it was a filthy secret - he released a statement about it. And I think he's right. Screw Iran, I don't care what they do.
     
  15. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    South Texas
    Dravur is right

    Lots of folks, myself included, felt utterly betrayed by Bush's father back in '92. Lots of folks, myself included, either voted third party (mostly Perot) or stayed home that November. Let's see, who is it that became President. Bush? No, he lost. Uh, Ross Perot? No, he didn't even win a single state. Oh, yeah, that's right, it was that "moderate" Democrat Clinton who won. That's right, the "lightweight" who the Republican's '96 nominee would just brush aside.

    For voting 3rd party in '92 we got 8 years of WORSE gun control than Bush 41 would ever have instituted, higher taxes, a completely ineffective and counterproductive foreign policy, the military got chopped to shreds, BJs in the Oval Office, technology transfers to China en mass and, last but not least, Senator Hillary Clinton, candidate for President in 2008. Had Clinton lost in '92, he'd be a trivia question and The Beast would just be another corrupt lawyer or lobbyist.

    FWIW, after many years of observing, studying and participating in politics and history, I believe that any responsible citizen should operate under the following principle:

    In the primaries, vote for and otherwise support the person who most closely reflects your values and ideals, i.e. vote and support the greatest Good. In the General Election, vote against and otherwise oppose the person who is the furthest from your values and ideals, the person who will - in your opinion - do the most damage to this country, i.e. vote against and otherwise oppose the greatest Evil.

    Why? Because, like it or not, the Presidential election will be won by either a Republican or a Democrat - its been the case since the mid-1850's and is unlikely to change for a long time to come. That's simple, practical reality.


    If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, I'll hold my nose and support him against Hillary. To paraphrase Churchill, "If the Devil was running against Hillary, I'd hold a fundraiser for the guy in the red suit with hoofs." Of course, he won't win the nomination - IMHO it'll most likely be Thompson. While he isn't perfect (who is?), he reflects my opinions and values about 95% of the time. Given the piss-poor track record and statements of EVERYONE else running for POTUS (everyone with A REALISTIC CHANCE TO DEFEAT HILLARY), Fred's head and shoulders above them and will be getting my vote and support.
     
  16. Sry0fcr

    Sry0fcr Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    240
    Location:
    Houston, Republic of Texas
    That's pretty easy when you don't recognize the UN and see it as a threat to the national sovereignty of ALL nations, Iran included.
     
  17. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    South Texas
    TrybalRage

    If he doesn't care about the UN (and I agree) and wants us out of it (I mostly agree), then why not either vote "Present" or go to the bathroom? HE VOTED NO! By voting "NO" he said that the resolution was wrong - that condemning Ahwannajihad is wrong. Sorry, but Ron Paul is WRONG.

    Oh, and Bush doesn't have the balls to attack Iran. We're cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood, for crying out loud, why would we risk war instead of trying to buy off an insane man with billions in oil revenue who'd like to murder us? Israel will ultimately attack Iran, because it has to in order to survive. As such, the argument that "it is one step further towards us attacking Iran" is simply nonsense. Ron Paul knows this - and voted NOT to condemn a fanatical nut with control over a wealthy nation. He'd probably have voted not to condemn Hitler, either - which says everything for me.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2007
  18. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    You go on and keep telling yourself that. The american people will see him as a continuation of Bush's policies and bury him.
     
  19. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    South Texas
    See my #26. Paul could've voted "Present" or not voted. Either of those would have been an acceptable protest (to me). Instead, he voted with Dennis Kucinich. You want to have your candidate agreeing with that nut? If so, then you have to expect some guilt by association for Paul.
     
  20. Robert J McElwain

    Robert J McElwain Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    368
    Location:
    Kansas City area
    And the reason it changed back then was that people voted their third party conscience. If you keep voting for $***, that's exactly what you'll get.

    Bob
     
  21. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    How does what an Iranian speaking about Israel have anything to do with the US? If Israel wants to attack Iran let them do it. It is NOT our problem, and it is most certainly not a good cause for us to be involved.
    BTW nobody voted to condemn Hitler, congress voted to declare WAR on him. If we need to intervene militarily anywhere let us declare WAR as is required by the US Constitution.

    Jefferson
     
  22. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    South Texas
    As opposed to Hillary, who will be SOOOO much better?

    BTW, Thompson is on record as stating that the war in Iraq has been handled incompetently, that Bush's immigration policy (and the proposed abomination before the Senate) are wrong - that we should enforce the borders first and foremost, and that we don't need more gun control. These things make him LOTS different than Bush, and Thompson is a skillful and bright speaker who will not allow the American people to see him "as a continuation of Bush's policies" because he simply won't be.

    Anyhow, like it or not, your man won't win the Republican nomination. So you're going to be faced with a choice next November: Vote Dem, vote Republican, vote for some 3rd party or stay home. That's it. Since you're obviously conservative/libertarian, you should want above all else to stop the most liberal (in the 2007 sense of that term) candidate (presumably the Dem) from attaining power. The ONLY realistic way of doing that is to vote for the Republican. Don't worry, it won't be Rudy (who's topped out and is dropping) or Romney (who's stuck around 15% despite spending millions) or McCain (who's support of the immigration bill has killed his already limited chances of winning). Its likely to be Fred. So choose: Hillary or Fred. That's the ONLY choice, and you know it. Voting 3rd party only takes a potential vote out of Fred's column and tosses it away, making a Hillary win far more likely.

    As a gun owner, you simply CANNOT want Hillary elected and having the power to appoint ultra lib Supreme Court justices and Chuck Schumer as AG - can you?
     
  23. ozwyn

    ozwyn Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Maryland
    I like RP but I think Fred can win. On the other hand, if RP makes the rest of the party really think about issues and stirs up some ideas in congress and the white house on bringing back individual rights, then it is still a win for the rest of us.
     
  24. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    South Texas
    Look, I want change, too. I despise what the majority of Republicans (at least in the Senate) have become, and maybe we do need another party to arise. Fine, so what's the best way to do that?

    By my way of thinking, you don't start at the top in politics, anymore than you graduate from college and apply for the position of CEO at a Fortune 500 company. You start at the grassroots, you elect local pols, show the people that your party is true to its word AND COMPETENT, and then move on to the state legislatures, governorships and Congress. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, do you take a stab at the Presidency. Otherwise, you have 2 major things going against you: First, no one can give your party any real credibility and second, your President - even IF he manages to win - will have no or very few supporters in Congress. He'll be a lame duck from the minute he's elected.

    If you're going to do something, do it right. If you start (as a party that wants to credibly supplant one of the 2 major parties) sensibly and with a plan, sooner rather than later the political system will reach a tipping point and there'll be a rush to your party as happened for the Republicans vs. the Whigs 150 years ago. Don't do that, and your candidates for President will continue to be nothing more than the subject of late night one-liners and trivia questions.
     
  25. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination I will vote for Hillary.
    I would just prefer to go fast down the road to the socialist utopia than by inches. If it comes all at once it won't hurt as bad.

    Jefferson
     
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