Fred Thompson on the Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree with him very much.

What I disagree with him on:

Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
 
Way too conservative for me. Conservatives and liberals have the same ideology; they are only different on their stances on the issues.
 
I doubt too many people here will vote for him, either because he is too conservative or not Ron Paul.

Oh I agree with that. :)
 
He's not my first choice, but much better then most of the rest.

Agreed. There will never be a "perfect" candidate because the "perfect" candidate is different for everyone. Someone will always have some kind of disagreement. I'm the only "perfect" candidate for myself and I will never be elected to public office.

And I am so sick of this salavation over Rudy...yet another I thought to be "in the Conservative Camp" supports Rudy:
http://mikegallagher.townhall.com/blog/g/6762e281-dbf3-4d20-9251-35cae4fed8c9
 
I agree, Texas. I'll only support Thompson if he's the main GOP guy for the presidential race.
 
Ron Paul won't get my vote.

He voted that the US should never fight wars. (Iraq)

As long as we're painting with broad brushes here....
 
Wrong again Colt. - Ron Paul cosponsored declaration of war on Iraq that was not allowed through committee.

The congress surrendered power to the executive to get what we got.
 
cbsbyte said:
I doubt too many people here will vote for him, either because he is too conservative or not Ron Paul.
Well, here's a vote for him. As for voting for Ron Paul, unless they write him in, or he switches to another party, nobody's voting for him in the general election because he will not be on the ballot.
 
Well, here's a vote for him. As for voting for Ron Paul, unless they write him in, or he switches to another party, nobody's voting for him in the general election because he will not be on the ballot.

Have to agree I can't see Ron Paul(No backbone to hammer the others, something that will be needed) getting the nomination, but what is Fred waiting for. I will vote for Fred Thompson.:) If any of the others (McCane, Guilianni and company:mad:) I for the first time in my life just will not vote.
 
Wrong again Colt. - Ron Paul cosponsored declaration of war on Iraq that was not allowed through committee.

Oh, I see. So Paul votes to start wars, but not finish them. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
You'll have to forgive my general ignorance on Ron Paul. Like the vast majority of voters, I have very little idea who he is or what he stands for, other than blaming the US for 911.

Thank you for your patience.
 
Fred Thompson on gun control:

http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm

He is in his own words "against gun control, generally."2 And his voting record shows that to be true, generally. When he voted anti-gun, it was usually to expand federal authority. This is unfortunately consistent with his being a "law and order conservative" (pardon the pun). A complete report on each individual vote is appended below.

Gun owners should also be aware that Thompson unabashedly favors the odious McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. This legislation, characterized by its proponents as campaign finance reform, severely limits the abilities of groups like GOA to inform the public about the gun rights voting records of politicians already in office. In many cases, it becomes illegal to even mention a politician's name in on-air advertising the month before an election. Thompson -- having voted in favor of the restrictions several times -- thinks doing so is "not a non-conservative position, although I agree that a lot of people have interpreted it that way."3


Ron Paul on gun control:

http://gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm

Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment. He has sponsored legislation to repeal the following:

the Brady law;
the requirement to lock up your safety (guns);
the law permitting the US to be part of the UN (which, among other attacks on American freedoms, seeks to ban privately transfered firearms);
participation in UNESCO -- which has been used to dumb down US education standards;
the federal prohibition on importation of guns on a sporting basis test;
federal prohibitions on any pilot wishing to carry a handgun to and in his cockpit; and,
the so-called "assault weapons" ban (prior to its sunsetting in 2004).

Ron Paul on illegal immigration:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.


I know who I'm voting for.
 
Edited to add: Ron Paul seems like the only candidate in the bunch who actually truly believes what we as gun owners have been looking for in a candidate.

If he doesn't get the nomination, I'm writing him in.
 
Well, here's another vote for Fred. His voting record on guns is FAR better than that implied by shllyshny, a post at best ingenuous. He has never voted anti gun (unless somehow you mix in Mccain-Feingold into a gun issue....)

Pretty much every reason that some people on this board AREN'T going to vote for Fred is the same reason all the other people WILL vote for him; he's not libertarian, and is strongly socially and economically conservative.

Oh yeah, he's also electable in the general election.
 
Oh, I see. So Paul votes to start wars, but not finish them. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Still Wrong Colt.

For some strange reason Paul woke up one morning and read the US Constitution. There was a little bit in there about "only congress shall have the power to declare war" or some such nonesense. So he called for a debate on declaring war on the merits instead of being led around by the nose by the executive and refusing to take responsiblity for their actions like many other members of congress.

Strange, there was no debate on giving over the power of war making to the executive, just as there was no dicussion (or even reading of) of the Patriot Act before it was rushed to the floor and voted on.

But this thread is not about Paul this is about Thompson. And who was a key ring leader in the Senate on both of these issues? Yeah, Thompson. So no, he does not get my vote.

You'll have to forgive my general ignorance on Ron Paul. Like the vast majority of voters, I have very little idea who he is or what he stands for, other than blaming the US for 911.

How can I forgive your ignorance when you keep making comments about which you know little apparently? If you went out and learned the truth and came up with an honest arguement like; "I Don't like Paul because he rejects a Federal Ban on Abortion and Gay Marriage" I can buy that, but to distort the truth or lie and then claim ignorance is not reaaly forgivable since you make no attempt at making ammends.
 
I believe Paul said that he did/does support the action in Afghanistan.

If the general comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, I'll vote 3rd party. At the end of the day though I guess I'll still pull for Rudy for the simple fact that he is not Hillary.
 
Strange, there was no debate on giving over the power of war making to the executive

Let's not spin things while accusing others of doing so. Congress didn't give over the power to make war; Congress authorized the use of force if certain conditions were met. Those conditions were met, so the executive acted on the specific authority delegated to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top