Fred Thompson Mega-Thread (Merged)

[Sam Adams]

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.

Then you are not someone that I'd care to share a foxhole with - you give up too easily. You're all gung ho now, but if someone doesn't do what you want you're going to take your ball home? Very politically mature, I must say.

BTW, I'm done with this thread. Arguing with Ronbots is as fruitful and rewarding as arguing with the DUmmies.

 

[jselvy]

you give up too easily. You're all gung ho now, but if someone doesn't do what you want you're going to take your ball home?

More of a case where I will have finally realized that this position cannot succeed on a national level until the average voter gets an up close and personal taste of the opposing position. People generally cannot learn from history, and thus the mistakes of the past must be repeated every few generations. I cannot change this fundamental fact of human nature, all I can do help speed up the process. There is more danger in creeping incrementalism than in a headlong rush.

Jefferson

 

[Sry0fcr]

As opposed to Hillary, who will be SOOOO much better?

You're missing the point. Americans are tired of the war, unless Fred (or any other republican candidate) is going to pledge to bring our buys home they will lose the general election. "staying the course" is a continuation of Bush's policy. If you want to know why Ron Paul supporters are so vehement it's because a pro-war candidate can't and won't win in '08 but people are working so hard to bury the only antiwar repub candidate because he won't tow the party line that is so far right of where it's supposed to be.

 

[ChadOsbourne]

I'm actually thinking about voting Ron Paul but haven't decided yet. Fred doesn't seem to be any different then Rudy and McCain. He doesn't understand the constitution. So he will never get my vote.

 

[ozwyn]

Actually, I am unsure if America is sick of the war, or sick of not understanding the war in terms of what we are really trying to accomplish and what the real commitment to the war entails.

Some people might blame the media for hitting every story with the vietnam comparison stick, or maybe the change in tone from WMD's to the war on terror to building Democracy in places where it will never be welcome.

I think without a clear view of why we are still there, what we actually intend to accomplish and if it is a reailistic goal could blunt a lot of anti-war sentiment.

Even if, in the "best case scenario" Iraq ends up like North/South Korea, there seems to be jack in terms of clarity between that goal and current actions.

that's why the War is a mess for anyone supporting it trying to run for election.

 

[McCall911]

I don't know what it has to do with Iraq, but...

I think the main thrust of the 1996 Lautenberg bill was that domestic violence arrests, even misdemeanors, can in effect disqualify a person for legal gun ownership.

 

[Henry Bowman]

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?

<<shudder>>

 

[Deanimator]

The Lautenberg Amendment was a GOOD thing if for no other reason than it did NOT exempt cops.

A lot of cops who supported gun control got a heaping helping of it and didn't like the taste AT ALL.

 

[McCall911]

A lot of cops who supported gun control got a heaping helping of it and didn't like the taste AT ALL.

You said it, sport!

That amendment raised the bar for gun owners but it also certainly raised it for potential police officers!

 

[GTSteve03]

BTW, I'm done with this thread. Arguing with Ronbots is as fruitful and rewarding as arguing with the DUmmies.

Way to make your point. You accuse the other side of picking up their ball and going home then you do the exact same thing.

Hey, at least you reflect your candidate pretty well.

 

[Autolycus]

Dravur: Who is talking about third party candidates? I believe Ron Paul is a Republican. And Fred Thompson is not officially in the race. So I guess your confused.

 

[Dravur]

Sorry Tecumseh...

Not confused at all. I know and I am sure you knew this as well. I do know that RP is a republican. This is your strawman, and I hate Strawmen. It is a cheap way to debate and usually makes no more sense than.. "you are a doodyhead... no, you are" Nowhere in my post did I mention Ron Paul and nowhere was I intimating that I was against Ron Paul.

I did state that in the national election, one of two parties is going to win. Pick one.

Simple...

Either the Democrat or the republican cadidate will win next year and NO amount of wishing or praying to the great god Cthulhu will change that. As was said before, you dont start at the top. Libertarians have had some luck at the local level. But wasting your vote on the libertarian candidate has no value whatsoever, at the national level. Now, if you want to work for Ron Paul at the Primary level, go for it. Now, make any decision you want, I don't care. But, these are the choices.

In the last election, the Democrats and the Republicans got 99% of the vote... All 17 other candidates shared 1%.

So, my reasoning still stands. One of those two parties will win... pick one.

 

[elrod]

George Wallace

There ain't a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans

Truer words were never spoken. No president can make much impact alone. However, when coupled with a legislature of the same party, he can accomplish much of his agenda. Naturally, when they are of opposite parties, not much of anything gets done(Which is probably the only hope):banghead: I hate to think of the Hildabeast or Bloomberg(yeah, he's gonna run) up there. I suppose I'll become an "Idol" fan. At least more people will be able to converse with me!

 

[ArfinGreebly]

* Sigh *

Fred Thompson . . .

. . . is still . . .

. . . the only . . .

. . . candidate . . .

. . . with a . . .

. . . shooting event . . .

. . . named after him.

* Sigh *

 

[pcosmar]

ArfinGreebly
If you organize an event for publicity and charity, you can name it after yourself.

 

[princewally]

You're missing the point. Americans are tired of the war, unless Fred (or any other republican candidate) is going to pledge to bring our buys home they will lose the general election. "staying the course" is a continuation of Bush's policy. If you want to know why Ron Paul supporters are so vehement it's because a pro-war candidate can't and won't win in '08 but people are working so hard to bury the only antiwar repub candidate because he won't tow the party line that is so far right of where it's supposed to be.

I disagree. Most Americans, IMHO, are tired of the way the war is being handled. According to my collection of entirely anecdotal evidence, Americans want to kick MORE ass, not run home with our tail between our legs.

"Staying the course" won't get someone elected, but neither will abandoning it. On the war issue, the popular position will be the candidate who promises to do it right, get it finished correctly, and then bring our boys back home.

 

[Sry0fcr]

That's exactly why we lost control of Congress. Americans wanted more and better war...

 

[McCall911]

Fred Thompson is still the only candidate with a shooting event named after him.

I'm with you, Arfin.


I'm leaning more towards Fred with every tick of the clock.

 

[bogie]

Just vote for hillary, and get it over with.

 

[davhina]

I disagree. Most Americans, IMHO, are tired of the way the war is being handled. According to my collection of entirely anecdotal evidence, Americans want to kick MORE ass, not run home with our tail between our legs.

+1
I am just tired of losing. We have become a nation of sniveling little narcissistic panty wastes. Imagine if we had, as a nation , behaved this way in the 1940's.
Go Fred!

That's exactly why we lost control of Congress. Americans wanted more and better war...

I disagree..very few want "more or better war"...most of just want to win as quickly as possible..imho

 

[TheOtherOne]

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.

Since "the lesser of two evils" is really our only choice, then why not choose the quicker and less painful suicide (of our rights) as opposed to the longer and more drawn out one?

Maybe we need to adopt a "get over with since it is coming anyways" type attitude? Just a thought.

 

[Grey54956]

Voting for the "quicker and less painful suicide (of our rights)" is only an option if you are either prepared to:

1.) Buckle under and lick the boots of your new master...

or

2.) Are just itching for a revolution, regardless of the lives that will be ruined or lost...

So which one are you?

I hope that it never comes down to either situation. The goal is to keep politics balanced at a nice happy medium that everybody can tolerate with only slight aggravation. If you let things get so horribly off balance that the system falls apart, it's gonna be trouble.

 

[samtechlan]

I disagree..very few want "more or better war"...most of just want to win as quickly as possible..imho

Define "win" in Iraq. The course we are pursuing is to place a Shi'ite fundamentalist Govt in power with close ties to Iran then we are shocked, shocked that Iran has so much influence in Iraq. If the pro-war crowd was honest they would say that they want permanent occupation of Iraq run by an american General as part of the american empire. I could respect that even as I disagreed with such a project.

The whole notion of "winning" and then bringing the troops home is infantile in the extreme. Who exactly are you leaving in control of Mesopotamia, Shi'ite Fundamentalists, Sunni Fundamentalists, the Kurds, Paris Hilton?

I know, I know we will leave it in the hands of a free, unified, Democratic, Capitalist Govt which will fairly represents all the different sects and prosper economically. It will be just like Bush and the neo-cons dream it. You'll see, you'll see. LOL!!!!

 

[nemoaz]

FRED running second and in a statistical dead heat with Ghouliani in some polls of likely voters!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

Run FRED, RUN!

Donate here: http://www.imwithfred.com/

 

[Marshall]

Huh? I didn't see Ron Paul, our great savior from ourselves, listed in any of the polls by any pollster. Strange, especially since he has such staunch support. I mean, the sky is falling and RP is the only hope.