Fred Thompson Mega-Thread (Merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vito...

Can you come up with any kind of evidence proving that Paul is an anti-semite?

Biker
 
Notice that Fred looks you in the eye, and ANSWERS the questions?

Run Fred Run.

I will relish a debate between FDT and Hillary or Obama. Veg o matic..... Buh bye Demos...
 
Here's the deal.

Thompson polls right up there with Guiliani for the primaries, right now. Nobody else does.

Thompson might actually get some crossover votes, as might Guiliani.

Despite what people say, Romney won't, IMO. Just because someone is unappealing to the majority of Republicans, some people seem to think that makes him appealing to Democrats. There's just no logic to this. Besides, I don't want to see Romney in there anyway.

So, in the real world, I'd rather see Thompson going up against the Democrat than Guiliani.

If you think Ron Paul can make it through the primaries, hey, go volunteer for his campaign. I encourage you to do so. But I don't think he can, and nobody who makes a living at figuring out these things thinks he can, either.

Sure, pollsters can be wrong, but wrong means that they're on the wrong side of a 45-55 split, not wrong about a candidate pulling less than 1% of the vote.

Of course the election is not tomorrow. Go volunteer! There's still time to change minds.

But I've worked for the campaign of a local Ron Paul-type candidate. We got a lot of attention, much of it positive, but in the end, we got the votes that the pollsters said we would, about 1%. I learned something from that.

Smart people look at various options, and have a plan B.

If your plan B is to vote for Hillary, whose rhetoric of late has been straighforward socialism, it's a bad plan. Bad for our rights, bad for our economy, bad for our country. If your plan B is to provide de facto support for Guiliani in the primaries, that's not a good plan, either.

Elections are ABOUT strategy. This isn't religion, it's politics.
 
I for one don't think millions of Illegal Aliens are a problem here in America.
I also don't think having a President who was in the CFR helping keep the Illegals coming would be a problem either.
So I'll vote for Fred Thompson. Or Hillary, or Obama, it doesn't make much difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
 
spartan20,

So you think that sapping nearly 20 billion dollars out of our economy to ship to mexico every year is a good thing? Do you think that the fact CA has taken a 4 billion dollar hit to it's education and healthcare system because of illegals is just no big deal? The fact that America cannot secure it's borders against illegals which means it cannot secure it's border against anything else, do you think this is no big deal? I urge you to wake up a little.
 
Now, let’s take a look at Thompson. He looks like a conservative, he talks like a conservative, but is he? No, he’s a neo-con. The first of many problems is that he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group dedicated to destroying the Constitution and national sovereignty. Think of it as “the place ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ get together” and have a few drinks and talk about being our tyrannical overlords before going back to their bickering.

http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/06/05/fred-thompson-neocon-extraordinaire/ http://www.thehighroad.org/images/smilies/fce32f95.gif
:neener:
 
I'm still perplexed with this Ron Paul = Anti-Semite thing. Where's the facts to back that assertation up? If it's just a pointless insult, then at least have the honesty to not try to pass it off as anything other than an opinion.

BTW, not supporting our government's welfare for Israel, a FOREIGN COUNTRY is not anti-semitism.
 
I know this has been brought up by smarter folks than I, but we need to be clear on short-term and long-term goals. Between desires and reality.

Many or most of us are big or small "L" libertarians and reflexively want to vote that way. We want to live on Pallas.

The problem is, we don't. At its best the United States will never be a libertarian wonderland based on the non-aggression principle and one man-one veto, not without a Constitutional Convention. We live in a Constitutional Republic, that's the system we need to focus on.

What we need to keep foremost in our minds then is not electing the purest Randian, but rather the best Constitutionalist we can. And we need to get away from the plain stupid idea that focussing on the executive is the way to ultimate victory. Yes, it's key for judicial appointments and foreign policy, but to really win, to take this country to its finest potentiality, we need to take the long view and work on incrementally shifting the legislature to a true Constitutionalist perspective. That's going to take engaging the electorate intelligently, even craftily, to shift the mindset of those who currently don't care to our way of thinking.

I'm not sure voting the absolute "best" libertarian candidate is thus the most rational choice, given we aren't electing them to a position in a libertarian form of government. Maybe voting the best Constitutionalist, even with flaws (especially if he appears to have recognized some of those flaws), who will also be the more electable (since Ron Paul, as a total candidate, is not going to get many votes even from people who agree with many of his individual positions) is the best way to get things rolling.
 
Ron Paul's article would be valid if our activities in the Middle East were altruistic.

They're not.

The US doesn't think "it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe."

The US State Department has believed that it is in our interest to do what we do. Sometimes, that may be true. Sometimes, it may not. Mistakes are a part of life.

Either way, an intelligent argument will have to address what is and what is not in our interest, not a straw man.

WRT the non-aggression principle, it doesn't stand up to the real world in its absolute form. This guy has thought about it a lot more than I have, and written about it: http://www.rationalreview.com/rationalreviewold/archive/guestcolumnists/jneilschulman102902.html

No matter what, you're always stuck with having to decide what to do in the real world, not in an imaginary one.
 
I'm still perplexed with this Ron Paul = Anti-Semite thing. Where's the facts to back that assertation up? If it's just a pointless insult, then at least have the honesty to not try to pass it off as anything other than an opinion.

BTW, not supporting our government's welfare for Israel, a FOREIGN COUNTRY is not anti-semitism.
Click to expand...

Hardly welfare, the money can only be used to buy American weapons, why do you think Israel is producing the TAVOR TAR-21 in America? It has to be to comply under the regulations for the money they receive from us. Israel also has a large defense department. Many of their companys like Rafael, Elbit, and IMI have large contracts with the US government.

I don't have a source for this but from my understanding, Ron Paul had stated something along the lines that Israel is not our ally and we shouldn't fund them or something like that. I don't so much mind if we fund or don't fund Israel but I surely would hate to see him end up funding the Palestinians or tell Israel to give land to create Palestine. Israel isn't the only country we send funds too, we send saudi arabia and egypt a crapload of money.

"Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ron_paul_racist_anti_semite/


Heres another one, can someone confirm this?

http://www.kxnet.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=125191

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.
 
Now, let’s take a look at Thompson. He looks like a conservative, he talks like a conservative, but is he? No, he’s a neo-con. The first of many problems is that he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group dedicated to destroying the Constitution and national sovereignty. Think of it as “the place ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ get together” and have a few drinks and talk about being our tyrannical overlords before going back to their bickering.
Click to expand...

All presidential candidates are members of the CFR even if they weren't during their initial decleration. The CFR destroys people that do not toe their line (see the book "Who Killed Yitchak Rabin" by Barry Chamish).


I'm still perplexed with this Ron Paul = Anti-Semite thing. Where's the facts to back that assertation up? If it's just a pointless insult, then at least have the honesty to not try to pass it off as anything other than an opinion.
BTW, not supporting our government's welfare for Israel, a FOREIGN COUNTRY is not anti-semitism.
Click to expand...

For about 1 million people (maybe) in this country that is a make or break item for them. Nixon was to some Jews I knew an Anti-Semite (I think primarily because there were more Jewish Democrats than there are today) and he still saved Israel's @ss in the 1973 airlift to Israel. Let me put it another way, When two Jews argue, they represent three points of view (comes from a Yiddish Joke so please don't delete this Mods.)

I think we need to figure who is good for AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL and nothing more.
 
I like it that Fred talks about Constitutional constraint of Federal Government activities.
Click to expand...

I don't care if he talks about Constitutional constraints, if his actions don't back that up.

It is insane to think that someone who have voted for the Patriot Act, Medicare Reform, and Campaign Finance Reform gives a hoot about constitutional constraints. The Patriot Act and Campaign Finance Reform indisputably detract from rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

He's pissing down your back and telling you its raining.

I think people in general are disappointed with the curent people running for the Republican nomination, and are projecting their hopes and dreams onto Fred as if he is an ideal candidate. But I don't think he is. He has some serious explaining to do why I should vote for him if he voted for Patriot, Medicare Reform, and Campaign Finance Reform.
 
Lone_Gunman said:
I don't care if he talks about Constitutional constraints, if his actions don't back that up.
Click to expand...

Then you are in a very small minority. How many Republicans or Conservatives out there do you think actually want a smaller government? There'd be cuts to the military. Fewer laws means fewer police to enforce them. A smaller government means the conservatives would have to give up all of their favorite government programs.

Conservatives want someone who will feed them lines about being for smaller government but who won't actually go through with any of it. It lets them feel good about themselves. Why do you think Reagan is their patron saint?

When you think about it, Thompson really is the perfect candidate for them.
 
Ideal? No. But he has a good chance of beating the Democratic Party's candidate whoever it is.

Nobody has a chance if they stray too far from the middle ground. That's why we keep seeing references to the Repub that's really a Dem and the Dem that's really more of a Repub. You appeal to the most voters if you're near the middle.

John
 
So the Bushies are going for Fred, and we previously read the freedom-loving evangelical big shots are going to as well.

As some famous hippie once said, you shall know a tree by its fruits.
 
What I find crazy is that the approval rating of congress is in the mid 20s and they were JUST ELECTED! All you people that scream about compromise and voting for the lessor of two evils (pun intended) need to pay attention to that.
 
Tecumseh said:
I will vote Ron Paul as Fred Thompson is to much of a christofascist for my tastes. I like his views on the 2nd amendment but other that that I cannot imagine voting for him. If there are only 2 choices on the ballot, Hillary or THompson, well I will be voting Hillary. This is assuming that the Libertarian Party is not running anyone....
Click to expand...

i'm a brazilianwaxofascist myself.
 
Holy crap, political threads like this always degenerate into veiled name calling, sarcastic remarks, venomous innuendo, and extreme views for all sides.

Can moderators stay impartial or moderate properly when they have jumped in with their views too?
 
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
748
Biker
Biker
F
  • Locked
Fred Thompson: Neocon Globalist?
Replies
2
Views
481
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
444
dralarms
D
Back
Top