1 old 0311
member
If Thompson runs he will have my vote. If he doesn't run I will do a protest vote.
Fred Thompson on the Issues
- Thread starter js
- Start date
- Status
rev214
Member
IMHO, thompson and gingrich will eventually be the main contenders for the republican nomination...
I get it. I'm wrong because I disagree with you. Okay, now I know.
Hey Titan6: You're Wrong! (Hey, this is fun! And it makes me feel good about myself, too!)
I thought congress DID pass an Iraq war resolution. What did I miss here?
Are you reading the same thread I am? I think Ron Paul's name is in here more than Fred's.
Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth and for calling me a liar. But the truth is, I don't know much about Ron...um... Ron... Paul is it? I do know a few things, though.
Like:
- Most voters don't even know who Ron Paul is, let alone support him. The majority of those who do actually recognize his name or know that he's running, know him as "that crazy kook who thinks the U.S is responsible for the attacks of 9/11" (You can thank Ron Paul for that. He's a whiz at debating!)
- Ron Paul has no grasp of reality. If he did, he'd know a candidate can't say the things he does and still expect to get elected.
- If you think Ron Paul is electable in today's political environment, you have no grasp of reality.
- On the plus side, Ron Paul does have the coveted pro-gun, pro-gay, pro-abortion, retreat-from-Iraq vote all sewn-up. So I guess that's something. Hang onto that.
PressCheck
Member
I'm 110% behind Fred Thompson. If he runs he will get my money & my time; and I've got lot of both.
I followed the link to here - http://www.issues2002.org/Ron_Paul.htm - for Ron Paul. It looks to me like Fred Thompson is SOLIDLY pro 2A, and Ron Paul is mixed - judging by his voting record.
Am I missing something here? He might be NRA 'A' Rated, but I don't see how?
Am I missing something here? He might be NRA 'A' Rated, but I don't see how?
Paul is following doctrinaire libertarianism.
Tort reform goes against Libertarian doctrine.
Now my personal opinion is mixed. On the one hand, limiting damages by law can thwart justice. On the other hand it costs far too much to get "justice" sometimes, and our civil court system is objectively so screwed up that it is being abused regularly.
In the balance, we need some sort of reform. I won't fault Paul for voting "no" on "reforms" he thought were bad. However, I don't see him offering an alternative, and we need that alternative.
Our "health care crisis" is a lawsuit crisis, and a legally-distorted market crisis, not a crisis of health care per se, or even of the direct costs of health care.
If not tort reform, then WHAT?
If you want to be President, impress me. Answer the question.
Tort reform goes against Libertarian doctrine.
Now my personal opinion is mixed. On the one hand, limiting damages by law can thwart justice. On the other hand it costs far too much to get "justice" sometimes, and our civil court system is objectively so screwed up that it is being abused regularly.
In the balance, we need some sort of reform. I won't fault Paul for voting "no" on "reforms" he thought were bad. However, I don't see him offering an alternative, and we need that alternative.
Our "health care crisis" is a lawsuit crisis, and a legally-distorted market crisis, not a crisis of health care per se, or even of the direct costs of health care.
If not tort reform, then WHAT?
If you want to be President, impress me. Answer the question.
WeThePeople
Member
This thread illustrates exactly how you can throw your vote away.
You should pick a viable candidate who best represents your interests. I don't care who you are, you're not going to actually get someone in the White House who believes exactly what you believe.
If we get a great pro 2a Dem or Rep in the running like Thompson, those of you who are hell bent on voting against him (or her!!) are effectively giving your vote to the other guy (or gal). Just look at what Ralph Nader did to Al Gore in 2000.
I would love for there to be a viable third party candidate. Unfortunately, there isn't one. Do I agree with Mr. Thompson on every issue? No. Do I agree with him on most issues? Yes.
You should pick a viable candidate who best represents your interests. I don't care who you are, you're not going to actually get someone in the White House who believes exactly what you believe.
If we get a great pro 2a Dem or Rep in the running like Thompson, those of you who are hell bent on voting against him (or her!!) are effectively giving your vote to the other guy (or gal). Just look at what Ralph Nader did to Al Gore in 2000.
I would love for there to be a viable third party candidate. Unfortunately, there isn't one. Do I agree with Mr. Thompson on every issue? No. Do I agree with him on most issues? Yes.
I like Fred Thompson the best.
I agree with most of his policies. He's a leader, he's got charisma, he can speak, and is good at articulating things. He answers tough questions with a simple yes or no, that is something the American people can understand.
(okay, Ron Paul fans, don't jump all over me, and I swear I'll kill the first person that calls me a neocon)
Recently he was asked about his help in the formation of Homeland Security, and asked if he regretted it. He answered honestly that at the time, it was felt that we needed to unite a bunch of organizations together to more effectively defend the country. He said they tried hard to make it not turn into another bloated bureacracy, and at the time, he had been really proud of his work on that. But then he said that they had failed, and it hadn't worked out like he had hoped.
That is amazing, to hear something like that out of a politician.
I agree with most of his policies. He's a leader, he's got charisma, he can speak, and is good at articulating things. He answers tough questions with a simple yes or no, that is something the American people can understand.
(okay, Ron Paul fans, don't jump all over me, and I swear I'll kill the first person that calls me a neocon)
Recently he was asked about his help in the formation of Homeland Security, and asked if he regretted it. He answered honestly that at the time, it was felt that we needed to unite a bunch of organizations together to more effectively defend the country. He said they tried hard to make it not turn into another bloated bureacracy, and at the time, he had been really proud of his work on that. But then he said that they had failed, and it hadn't worked out like he had hoped.
That is amazing, to hear something like that out of a politician.
Zundfolge
Member
Jesus I'm sick of the Ron Paul sycophants ... I like Ron Paul a lot but this is a thread about Fred Thompson ... can you keep the Ron Paul proselytizing in the Ron Paul threads please?
Titan6
member
Show me a "Declaration of War" and I withdraw that you are lying.
I hope Thompson or Paul or Newt gets the nomination, BUT I will vote for whomever has the R after their name, even if I have to hold my nose. YMMV
If you want to call me names, go ahead. Only an id_ot votes their conscience when they should be shooting, if they really believe what they write. Again, YMMV
Titan6
member
And when Ron Paul says it he is a kook? I guess it is all in how you say it...
Now Correia does that sound like you? Trotsky maybe, but certainly not Strauss...
I don't know. Does that go both ways?
Titan6
member
Calling it out the first mention of Ron Paul was in post #13 by Colt, the local Thompson sycophant. I figure he threw it in there because I expressed why I would not vote for Thompson on the issues, and what I took issues with him on. Instead of disputing the issue he threw out an attack on Ron Paul rather than allow it to turn into a feeding freenzy on Thompson's weakness in the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberities.
Dravur
Member
Awww, the love is in the air.
My candidate voted to pick his nose in public...
Well, Your candidate is a doodyhead
No, your candidate wets the bed.....
And all this bickering and no one debates the chilling effect on gun ownership if Ether the Hildabeast or Obama gets in office......
How 'bout this. In general, the Republican Party is more Pro 2k than the Democrat party.
In this country, Party trumps person. The group with the power wins.
So, Whomever is put up against the Hildabeast, gets my vote, as the thought of her getting into office sends chills up my spine.
My candidate voted to pick his nose in public...
Well, Your candidate is a doodyhead
No, your candidate wets the bed.....
And all this bickering and no one debates the chilling effect on gun ownership if Ether the Hildabeast or Obama gets in office......
How 'bout this. In general, the Republican Party is more Pro 2k than the Democrat party.
In this country, Party trumps person. The group with the power wins.
So, Whomever is put up against the Hildabeast, gets my vote, as the thought of her getting into office sends chills up my spine.
For me the issue is one of "electability". I will vote for Mr. Thompson if he runs, for I agree with 90% of the things he has taken a stand on thus far.
Ron Paul at this point has no chance to win the party nomination and he does not have enough funding for a credible third party run (unlike Bloomberg).
Unless something goes radically wrong for the Democrats (like they wake up and realize the country is mostly conservative) they will nominate an extremist like Hillary or Obama over Bill Richardson.
The Republicans have no winners right now. Fred Thompson could be their saving grace: he is articulate, he represented Tennessee quite ably, he is telegenic and millions of people have seen him on movies and TV (usually as a person in charge). You can't buy that kind of positive recognition.
If he runs, I predict a clear win for him against anyone but Bill Richardson. If Bloomberg runs as a third party candidate, I predict a lopsided win for Thompson, against any current Democratic hopeful.
Ron Paul at this point has no chance to win the party nomination and he does not have enough funding for a credible third party run (unlike Bloomberg).
Unless something goes radically wrong for the Democrats (like they wake up and realize the country is mostly conservative) they will nominate an extremist like Hillary or Obama over Bill Richardson.
The Republicans have no winners right now. Fred Thompson could be their saving grace: he is articulate, he represented Tennessee quite ably, he is telegenic and millions of people have seen him on movies and TV (usually as a person in charge). You can't buy that kind of positive recognition.
If he runs, I predict a clear win for him against anyone but Bill Richardson. If Bloomberg runs as a third party candidate, I predict a lopsided win for Thompson, against any current Democratic hopeful.
scurtis_34471
Member
I agree with Ron Paul more, but I don't think he'll go the distance. Of the rest of the candidates out there now, I'd take Fred Thompson in a heartbeat.
Hmm...that's funny. I would vote for him based on every single one of those points. While 1 or 2 I may not fully agree with, as a whole he best represents what *I* believe in. And that's a very 5000 foot view of the issues that were actually voted on.
I don't understand why voting no on Kosovo airstrikes was a bad thing...we basically crippled them from keeping the Muslims extremists out of their country...
GTSteve03
Member
That's great, if you're a one-issue voter.
Yeah yeah, blah blah 2nd amendment is the most important, etc.
Really now, how effective are your guns when your rights under the 4th Amendment are being taken away with illegal eavesdropping on your cellphone conversations or Internet surfing?
Yeah, the R's may be a little less gun-grabby than the D's, but they're a helluva lot worse with some of the other Amendments.
Prince Yamato
Member
I like Thompson the best. Now if he'd only run damnit!
Amen. That's how I'm voting!
Amen. That's how I'm voting!
Autolycus
Member
How 'bout this. In general, the Libertarian party is more Pro-Constitution than the Republican and Democrat Parties combined.
Its the truth, isnt it?
Zundfolge
Member
Yeah, right like the Dems won't embrace the Patriot Act and all the other encroachments on our privacy and rights when they get fully in power.
The only reason most Democrats oppose the Patriot Act is because it was signed by a Republican president ... as soon as they are in the white house expect all the anti Patriot Act talk to disappear.
Democrats are just as bad for all our other civil liberties as they are on guns.
Isn't that nice ... too bad not a one of them can get into any position of power to actually do anything other than bitch, moan and write editorials in obscure political magazines like Reason (and yes, Reason is obscure ... most people have no idea it exists ... more people know about High Times than Reason).
Titan6
member
I only know of one dem seriously talking anti-PA. Richardson.
- Status
