Fred Thompson on the Issues
- Thread starter js
- Start date
- Status
Autolycus
Member
Well thats all the more reason to vote for them. Once we have more people voting Libertarian we will see more of an impact and they will become more mainstream. Everyone who says they are Libertarian but won't vote Libertarian for whatever reason is what is keeping the Libertarian party from becoming a major political party.
GoRon
Member
The incompetence of the party apparatus, the poor candidates coupled with a Utopian view of reality have nothing to do with their failure in the marketplace of ideas?
GTSteve03
Member
Yeah, I suppose voting for people who actually want to do something about the bloated government is pretty stupid, let's just keep voting for the guys that have been there for a long time and aren't actually doing anything to represent the common people.
It makes much more sense.
GoRon
Member
They can't communicate their ideas and run a successful campaign yet you guys want them to run the country.
longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
Amazing that all of us gun lovers actually have a chance to vote for a pro-gun traditional American values candidate in Fred Thompson who also has an incredible persona and speaking ability that will appeal to all the mind-numbed sheep out there, probably the best ELECTABLE candidate since Reagan. And many still aren't happy?
BTW the ONLY reason the Dems sided against the PA and other percieved infringements on the Constitution is because it was Republican President that was pushing it. Once Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton is in office you won't hear a peep about the evils of the PA and other slimy .gov activities. Libertarians are right on many things and speak as though they can solve all problems, everything is based on THEORY and not REALITY.
And while I generally agree with the "lesser of two evils" approach, not if it involves either Romney or Giuliani at the head of the ticket or even McCain. The formers are anti-gun, liberal, nearly fascist in their views and the latter is even crazier than Ron Paul. John McCain has no business having any access to the "football" codes. Of course if the new Amnesty program passes and the Dems have 20 million new voters backing them than the GOP is finished anyways and this country will have a one-party political system. Then we'll really see just how fast America can go to full-bore Socialism.
BTW the ONLY reason the Dems sided against the PA and other percieved infringements on the Constitution is because it was Republican President that was pushing it. Once Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton is in office you won't hear a peep about the evils of the PA and other slimy .gov activities. Libertarians are right on many things and speak as though they can solve all problems, everything is based on THEORY and not REALITY.
And while I generally agree with the "lesser of two evils" approach, not if it involves either Romney or Giuliani at the head of the ticket or even McCain. The formers are anti-gun, liberal, nearly fascist in their views and the latter is even crazier than Ron Paul. John McCain has no business having any access to the "football" codes.
Of course if the new Amnesty program passes and the Dems have 20 million new voters backing them than the GOP is finished anyways and this country will have a one-party political system. Then we'll really see just how fast America can go to full-bore Socialism.My preference is Fred Thompson, but I'll probably vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination, even if it's ::gag, ack, phpbphtphtptt:: Rudy McRomney.
While a Fred/Paul, or Fred/Hunter, or even Fred/Tancredo or Fred/Newt is my preference, the bottom of my list is populated with a tie for last place between Rudy and Mitt with McCain just above them and the others sandwiched in between there and Fred/Any breathing body.
As much as I hate voting for the lesser of two evils, and as much as I swore I'd never do it again, a protest vote will only put, God save us, Hillary or Obama in the White House. The only question is, will they be any worse than Rudy McRomney?
While a Fred/Paul, or Fred/Hunter, or even Fred/Tancredo or Fred/Newt is my preference, the bottom of my list is populated with a tie for last place between Rudy and Mitt with McCain just above them and the others sandwiched in between there and Fred/Any breathing body.
As much as I hate voting for the lesser of two evils, and as much as I swore I'd never do it again, a protest vote will only put, God save us, Hillary or Obama in the White House. The only question is, will they be any worse than Rudy McRomney?
Feanaro
Member
Not all gun owners are interested in "traditional American values" (in the way most people use that phrase), especially on the internet. $75 million on abstinence education and McCain-Feingold isn't quite what some people are dreaming of. For me, he seems like a much better deal than any of the other middle-of-the-fence empty suits running.
Autolycus
Member
longhorngunman: Can you elaborate for me what traditional family values are?
My problem is with the current size of government. What is Thompson going to do about reducing the size of government? If he's not planning on doing anything, then I won't support a guy to be in office just because he has traditional American values.
I want someone in that position to fix things, not just because I like him or because we have the same conservative background.
GTSteve03
Member
Well, I'm not longhorngunman, but when I see that line I typically think of:
-Christian conservatives
-Intolerant of homosexuals, non-Christians and foreigners
-Anti-science, specifically evolution
-Anti-abortion and birth control, abstinence only
-Anti drug, even alcohol and tobacco use
But, I could be way off base there.
pcosmar
member
It doesn't declare war on anybody. It is not a "Declaration of War".
scurtis_34471
Member
I disagree with Fred Thompson on a number of things listed above:
1. Gay Marriage (pay the same taxes, get the same benefits)
2. Abstenance-only sex education (religion-driven and ineffective)
3. Flag-burning (I reserve the right to think people who do it are scum)
4. Human cloning (this bans using human DNA to engineer animals for organ harvesting)
5. Cuba (the embargo doesn't work, let's drop it)
Like I said, I'm a libertarian. I just think a Conservative Republican is the best we can hope for right now, even if that does come with baggage I don't like.
1. Gay Marriage (pay the same taxes, get the same benefits)
2. Abstenance-only sex education (religion-driven and ineffective)
3. Flag-burning (I reserve the right to think people who do it are scum)
4. Human cloning (this bans using human DNA to engineer animals for organ harvesting)
5. Cuba (the embargo doesn't work, let's drop it)
Like I said, I'm a libertarian. I just think a Conservative Republican is the best we can hope for right now, even if that does come with baggage I don't like.
River Wraith
Member
I like Thompson, although I don't agree with him on every issue. A Thompson Hunter ticket or Thompson Tancredo ticket might be good.
scurtis_34471
Member
When it comes to issues, I'd rather have Ron Paul. The problem is that Ron Paul does not stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Internet buzz or not, he cannot win. What I think he can do is get the ideas out there and demonstrate that libertarians are not kooks. The press is trying really hard to paint him as a kook, but only with limited success. I think Ron Paul could be the one who gets enough votes to make a small toe-hold that future candidates can use. His candidacy is a scouting missing, not a main assault. We should temper our expectations.
In the meantime, Thompson won my admiraton with his rebuff of Micheal Moore. This guy is old-school in the good sense of the word and I like him. I don't agree with him on a number of individual issues, but he is so much better than Romney, Guilliani, McCain, Clinton, Obama or any of the other front-runners that I'm starting to pin my hopes on him. He's a little cozier with the religious right than I like and a little too conventionally interventionalist in his foreign policy, but I think he'd be a strong leader with a good head and a level of respect for the Constitution that's been recently lacking.
In the meantime, Thompson won my admiraton with his rebuff of Micheal Moore. This guy is old-school in the good sense of the word and I like him. I don't agree with him on a number of individual issues, but he is so much better than Romney, Guilliani, McCain, Clinton, Obama or any of the other front-runners that I'm starting to pin my hopes on him. He's a little cozier with the religious right than I like and a little too conventionally interventionalist in his foreign policy, but I think he'd be a strong leader with a good head and a level of respect for the Constitution that's been recently lacking.
AZLibertarian
Member
pcosmar...
This war has been different than any war in the past. Everything we've ever thought about war has been in the context of one country using it's military against another. Here, we've got jihadis who, with some support from what we call "rogue states", engage in low-level direct warfare and terrorism.
Because the nature of this war is different than anything in the past, the conventions that we previously used to define which countries were at war, who were the legal combatants, what were the rules of war, etc., have flown out the window. If you want a "Declaration of War", you'll have to point to who you believe our enemy to be. There is no al-Quadia or Jihadistan on the map. But just because these countries don't exist on a map, and therefore fit into the conventions of what it means to go to war, does not mean that these forces are not our enemies.
To bring this thread back to the topic at hand, I'll support Thompson in a heartbeat. Guys like Ron Paul are why I am now a small "l" libertarian. It is his right to base his platform on the liberty that all libertarians treasure, but IMO, he is failing to recognize that our enemies abroad do not treasure liberty at all, and are willing to impose their views on us. I think that this battle is still very much worth fighting. YMMV.
OK. You got me there. It doesn't "declare war". However, the short title is "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". I dunno how much stronger the language of a formal declaration of war might be, but this one is pretty unambiguous.
This war has been different than any war in the past. Everything we've ever thought about war has been in the context of one country using it's military against another. Here, we've got jihadis who, with some support from what we call "rogue states", engage in low-level direct warfare and terrorism.
Because the nature of this war is different than anything in the past, the conventions that we previously used to define which countries were at war, who were the legal combatants, what were the rules of war, etc., have flown out the window. If you want a "Declaration of War", you'll have to point to who you believe our enemy to be. There is no al-Quadia or Jihadistan on the map. But just because these countries don't exist on a map, and therefore fit into the conventions of what it means to go to war, does not mean that these forces are not our enemies.
To bring this thread back to the topic at hand, I'll support Thompson in a heartbeat. Guys like Ron Paul are why I am now a small "l" libertarian. It is his right to base his platform on the liberty that all libertarians treasure, but IMO, he is failing to recognize that our enemies abroad do not treasure liberty at all, and are willing to impose their views on us. I think that this battle is still very much worth fighting. YMMV.
With your crystal ball, can you also tell us next week's lottery numbers?
The fact that Ron Paul is making a huge buzz, more so than I expected, says good things.
But yeah, if we can't have Ron Paul we can take Fred Thompson and all his conservative baggage.
Autolycus
Member
Thats what I was getting at but I wanted him to define it as he made the statement and I wanted to get his definition.
metallic
Member
His belief that there exists a marriage penalty is enough to turn me off of him. He promises to alleviate that but I'm scared that it is going to be at my expense and I'm already seeing close to 30% of my income withheld by the government each year.
Dravur
Member
yep
The libertarian party is closer to the constitution than the Rs and the Ds....
Whoop de whiskers.
now, back to candidates who have a snowball's chance of winning.
The libertarian party is closer to the constitution than the Rs and the Ds....
Whoop de whiskers.
now, back to candidates who have a snowball's chance of winning.
Where does Fed Thompson fall on the political chart? He is a centrist. He is on the left wing of the Republican party. He might as well be on the right wing of the Democrat party. What that means is that he partly believes in economic freedom and partly believes in economic slavery. He partly believes in social freedom and partly believes in social control.
Ron Paul believes both in economic and social freedom. George Bush believes in little economic freedom, and little social freedom, scoring historically close to Stalin and Hitler, but fortunately for us, he never could completely get his own way in politically imposing his views.
You can go down the list of people and assess their view about how much they want to control your economic life and social life, but Ron Paul and Fred Thompson are not equal. Fred Thompson does not believe in as much freedom as does Ron Paul, and now you look in the mirror. Which one of these you support reflects your own personal view of how free or how slave we should be. If you support some of the others like Guiliani or McCain, or heaven forbid Obama or Hillary, then God help you because in your mirror you are looking at evil.
Ron Paul believes both in economic and social freedom. George Bush believes in little economic freedom, and little social freedom, scoring historically close to Stalin and Hitler, but fortunately for us, he never could completely get his own way in politically imposing his views.
You can go down the list of people and assess their view about how much they want to control your economic life and social life, but Ron Paul and Fred Thompson are not equal. Fred Thompson does not believe in as much freedom as does Ron Paul, and now you look in the mirror. Which one of these you support reflects your own personal view of how free or how slave we should be. If you support some of the others like Guiliani or McCain, or heaven forbid Obama or Hillary, then God help you because in your mirror you are looking at evil.
- Status
