Fred Thompson Mega-Thread (Merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
Has he ever explained his statement along the lines of "95% of the black males in DC are criminals"?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dravur asked,
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
Click to expand...
Third party? Oh do you mean like Bloomberg.
 
All the more reason to vote RP.
Click to expand...
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
 
IT'S ONLY MY FIRST POST ON A FIREARMS SITE. VOTE FOR RON PAUL OR BE DAMNED!

Troll.jpg

Troll
 
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.
 
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?
 
All the more reason to vote RP.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
BryanP.
I would like to see Ron Paul's response.
Click to expand...
Here ya go.
During Paul's original Congressional campaign in the 14th District, his opponent Lefty Morris used some of his old newsletters against him. A 1996 article in the Houston Chronicle alleges that Ron Paul made comments in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) which could be construed as racist, including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan, and that this could help his political opponents.

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt a "moral responsibility" to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them…I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"
He further stated:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady… we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.
Click to expand...
http://www.reclaim.org/racist-smear
 
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.
 
Dravur is right

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TrybalRage

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.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
The american people will see him as a continuation of Bush's policies and bury him.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Fred Thompson on the Issues
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
2K
JShirley
JShirley
R
  • Locked
Ron Paul v.s. Fred Thompson
Replies
12
Views
742
Biker
Biker
F
  • Locked
Fred Thompson: Neocon Globalist?
Replies
2
Views
476
Correia
C
M
  • Locked
New Fred Thompson thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
Fred Thompson Interview Weekly Standard
Replies
8
Views
437
dralarms
D
Back
Top