Fred Thompson's take.

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I said in another thread, I hope Fred is so far ahead in the polls that I can still vote for Ron Paul in the primary. I'd just like to show the poll watchers how large the libertarian segment of society really is.

But I really want Fred to win. I will definitely vote for him in the election, and I will vote for him in the primary if it looks like he needs me.
 
"The thing about Fred is that he doesn't really want the job, but feels it's his responsibility to step up and serve if necessary. He's still deciding if that's the case and probably leaning toward a yes."

This reminds me of a couple of quotes that I've heard through the years:
1.) (This, I believe, can be attributed to Col. Jeff Cooper.):
"Has anyone else noticed that the best president we ever had was the only one who didn't want the job?"

2.) (I believe this is from ancient chinese philosopher Tao):
"Anyone who wants to run a country is not qualified to do it."
 
Sent this to ABC Radio -

"Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually."

Senator Thompson's words reflect my thoughts exactly. As a safety engineer I was familiar with the various CDC studies showing that gun violence could not be correlated to the type of gun or magazine capacity or even availability to adults, but that civilian right to carry could be related to lower violent crime rates. I'm happy to see someone point this out.

Thank you.

BTW, if you want someone to win the Presidency then you need to support him from before he decides to run all the way through to the White House or you may not get him.
 
doesn't want the job

+1 on that, schnook.

"The thing about Fred is that he doesn't really want the job, but feels it's his responsibility to step up and serve if necessary.

The remarkable thing is how this is a quality so rare in political life, from local all the way to national levels. The primary quality in politicians seems to be self aggrandizement. and the only motive what is good for them and ensures re-election.
 
But I really want Fred to win. I will definitely vote for him in the election, and I will vote for him in the primary if it looks like he needs me.
I didn't know who he was until my wife rented some lame movie about an unfunny comic who goes to India and Pakistan to try and understand what folks in that part of the world think is "funny," and saw the guy from Law and Order playing Senator Fred Thompson.

Oh. (Didn't finish the movie, by the way.)

I don't know that I can vote for the guy. Even if I can get past the crap he said on Law and Order (where he played your average elitist statist government-type), there are his issues:
  • Against stem cell research, from what I can tell.
  • Didn't limit cell phone wiretapping when given a chance
  • Against same-sex marriage
  • Thinks it's OK to refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation
  • Wanted a flag burning amendment
  • Wants to continue the drug war
  • Voted for McCain Feingold
  • Voted for the medicare drug benefit
  • Wants to continue the war in Iraq
That doesn't excite me much. I'm just not a social conservative -- I think the whole point of this American experiment was to allow us to live our lives as we saw fit, and I guess any restrictions on who I sleep with, what I consume, what I say (or how I say it), and so on just strikes me as horribly wrong and misguided.

Ron Paul, I have no trouble with. This joker may be a better choice for more mainstream "conservatives" though. Doesn't mean I'll vote for him, unless he shows me something more compelling than I've seen so far.
 
turth is stranger than fiction

VT and it's administration did not "grant or recognize" the Second Amendment Right, but they did over rule, deny and flaunt the Supreme Law of the Land.
And were not corrected.
 
For those who ARE social conservatives, Fred Thompson is a cinch.

For those who AREN'T social conservatives, but are still liberty minded (as opposed to authoritarian minded), Fred Thompson is all you've got.

Hillary? Obama? McCain? Guliani? Have fun with those.

Ron Paul? Man, I love the guy, but not a chance. Too many people will be voting for Fred Thompson once he runs.

If you are liberty minded, FT is your way out. You've gotta play the cards dealt.

Nick
 
If you are liberty minded, FT is your way out. You've gotta play the cards dealt.
Actually, I'm about convinced that the game is rigged. They might end up with all of my chips anyway, but I won't do the "lesser evil" thing any more. He's a better choice that Bush, or Guliani, or McCain, but that's not enough to get my vote.

I'll vote for someone I believe will represent me. Call me an idealist.
 
* Against stem cell research, from what I can tell.
* Didn't limit cell phone wiretapping when given a chance
* Against same-sex marriage
* Thinks it's OK to refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation
* Wanted a flag burning amendment
* Wants to continue the drug war
* Voted for McCain Feingold
* Voted for the medicare drug benefit

* Wants to continue the war in Iraq

As a social conservative, I am against the bolded parts. Derek, you should not lump social conservatives in with social moderates (such as Thompson).

Thinks it's OK to refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation

I think the whole point of this American experiment was to allow us to live our lives as we saw fit

Does this include the right to freely associate, or not associate? Should churches be mandated to hire a homosexual who supports the legalization of pedophelia?

That said, overall I really like Thompson, so I am running with him, because in the end I do not see him as a lesser of two evils, I see him as an overall positive force. I could be wrong, but at this time I have nothing to prove to me that I am.
 
Does this include the right to freely associate, or not associate? Should churches be mandated to hire a homosexual who supports the legalization of pedophelia?
Free association is fine. This includes 'no colored folks,' male-only clubs, refusing to hire someone because of their religious beliefs, and the rest.

If we're going to 'protect' some people from discrimination, why not everyone who's discriminated against?

That said, overall I really like Thompson, so I am running with him.
I feel confident you're not alone.
 
Free association is fine. This includes 'no colored folks,' male-only clubs, refusing to hire someone because of their religious beliefs, and the rest.

If we're going to 'protect' some people from discrimination, why not everyone who's discriminated against?

Just to clarify this, are you for adding sexual orientation because there are laws protecting some groups, but opposed to the idea as unconstitutional, or do you support the idea that some groups should be protected?

My belief is that if you decide not to associate with someone for any reason, regardless of absurdity or flat out meanness, it is your constitutionally protected right. If you choose not to hire them to work for you, it is the same. Do you agree or no?
 
Just left a houndred duplex printed copies

Fred Thompson is considering a campaign for President.
There seems to be no other widely supported Conservative who may be willing to run.
True Conservatives that study the candidates will not be voting for McCain or Giuliani.
http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=389928&SPID=15663
• Fred Thompson Report

April 19, 2007
Signs of Intelligence?
One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.
Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.
The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.
Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.
In recent years, however, armed Americans -- not on-duty police officers -- have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.
The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.
Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.
When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.
Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses -- and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.
Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.
posted by Fred Dalton Thompson on 4/19/2007 6:31:28 PM


Some big fire dept training event going on down town. Out of state plates are easy targets.
 
My belief is that if you decide not to associate with someone for any reason, regardless of absurdity or flat out meanness, it is your constitutionally protected right. If you choose not to hire them to work for you, it is the same. Do you agree or no?
Yes. Having said that, I personally discriminate against no-one, other than for reasons of personal character.
 
Do It In One Take

Look at Arnold, Ronnie, Sonny Bono, Ventura, etc. While Democrats use celebs to speak out for them...Republicans cut to the chase and actually elect them to office.

They have instant name recognition, follow direction, read their lines very well, possess good presence and, in Fred's case, are politically savy and been elected to office.

If his health is acceptable, Fred's a good choice. Every role he's played evokes confidence, trust and decisiveness. Sheep have a subconscious belief that if it happens on the tee-vee..it's gotta be right and translates over to real life.

Gaiudo's right. Ron Paul is my choice..but hasn't got a realistic shot. Thompson will delute any chance Paul might have if the DA/CIA/CEO/FBI/Father Figure announces.
 
The road to totalitarianism is paved by idealism.
Yep. Voting for Bush because he was better than the alternatives in the last 2 elections really worked well, didn't it? Hell, we almost got a Harriet Meiers and an Alberto Gonzales on the Supreme Court from that bit of good judgment. ;) John got called up from the IRR to serve over in the middle-east because our WMD-hunt in Iraq (you know, the "we've got secret evidence we won't share, but we know he has them and have reason to believe he'll use them or give them to terrorists" based fiasco?) got us over-extended. We got the biggest increase in federal handouts in history. And the patriot act. And torture of prisoners taken from combat zones who we've decided not to treat as prisoners of war. And arrest of citizens who are then held indefinitely without charges or access to an attorney. And an executive branch that says "it's not torture if it doesn't cause organ failure or death" (read that as we can wire your testicles with 24 volts, or tear out your fingernails, and it's not "torture" as defined by law, just a "coercive technique").

Not saying Fred Thompson is for any of this, or that he'll be as bad for the country as Bush has been. I'm saying this to point out that the "our guy sucks but we've got no choice" argument comes with a bunch of negative associations.
 
Against stem cell research, from what I can tell.
Against same-sex marriage
Thinks it's OK to refuse to hire someone based on sexual orientation

...I think the whole point of this American experiment was to allow us to live our lives as we saw fit...
You may want to double-check your consistency here. How does it affect how you live if a politician doesn't want to use federal funds for stem cell research (or any medical research at all), won't give you a bull**** marriage certificate (that somehow validates your beliefs that are clearly higher than government), and doesn't want to control a business's hiring decisions (for whatever stupid reason they choose)?

Totally with you on most of the rest there. Medicare, McCain-Feingold, etc. make me want to gag, but let us enjoy the excitement of actually liking a viable political candidate for a change instead of having to face reality right away. Fantasy land is fun! :)
 
How does it affect how you live if a politician doesn't want to use federal funds for stem cell research (or any medical research at all)
You mean, how does this decision affect me personally, or what are the consequences to our society from this decision and any setbacks to future treatment as a result of it, or how does it affect my society because the edge we've had in biotechnology (predicted to be one of the huge growth industries for the forseeable future) is being lost to foreign companies (because their research isn't hindered the same way), likely never to return?

It's a controversial moral decision, being dictated from on-high.

won't give you a bull**** marriage certificate (that somehow validates your beliefs that are clearly higher than government)
I've got my marriage certificate, thank you. Marriage in my opinion is a union of 2 (or more -- I've got no issues if Jamal wants to marry all three of his baby mommas ((is that correct?)) and maintain one household instead of 3, while sharing childrearing so they can get 3 people into the workforce with one at home, rather than 3 at home and one working) people in the sight of their community and their God. If 2 folks can show up and convince a church to condone their union, why outlaw the legitimacy of that union? Why make things that much harder for folks making end-of-life-care decisions for lifelong partners versus estranged family members, or providing health care to non-traditional families (which are generally something 'married' folks get, but single folks can't get coverage for their roommates, though this is changing due to market based pressure), or clearly defining death benefits and asset allocation when someone dies without a clear will (when things generally seem to go to the next of kin, rather than the guy/gal the deceased wasn't allowed to 'marry'), and so forth?

It's just a "hey honey, let's vote for Fred because he doesn't like fags either" checkbox as far as I can tell. Same on flagburning -- traditional methods of protest (including hanging people in effigy in colonial times) that are no longer allowed because it's threatening/offensive (which it's supposed to be).

and doesn't want to control a business's hiring decisions (for whatever stupid reason they choose)?
No, I think it's more of a "fags are people who have made immoral life choices, and we're not going to reward them with the same protections we offer to minorities, women, the disabled, people with fringe religious beliefs, and so forth." It says something about the man that he'd offer protection to everyone but a certain group. Or at least, it can be interpreted that way.

Totally with you on most of the rest there. Medicare, McCain-Feingold, etc. make me want to gag, but let us enjoy the excitement of actually liking a viable political candidate for a change instead of having to face reality right away. Fantasy land is fun!
Then have fun. :)

It possible I'll change my mind as the race goes forward, but I'm certainly not leaning that way yet.
 
The day Fred Thompson announces his candidacy is the day I volunteer for his campaign.

And I've never volunteered for any campaign.
 
"Fred has cancer. Who is the VP?"

How about Ted Nugent? :D
Seriously, it'll be hard to pick up someone who isn't going to make Fred look bad. Picture the field day that the media would have if Thompson got elected with McCain or Gulliani as a VP, what with their propensity for treading lines that Fred wouldn't lower himself to cross. And anything the the VP does makes the President look bad. I think the country needs 4-8 years of leadership that gives little thought to playing politics and lots of thought to fixing the issues in our country.
 
Derek, I understand, I was just challenging you. There seems to be a fine line between supporting the "right things" within the system and advocating that the entire system gets thrown out. For example, I don't think the federal government should spend any money on medical research because that is not supposed to be their job. Most people are either for federal stem-cell funding for the reasons you mentioned or against it for religious reasons. I'm against it because I'm against all such funding, but it makes me look like a kook because I'm in the same camp as the people who have a moral issue with it. Especially since it's so difficult to repeal legislation or toss out the rest of the government framework, it makes it tempting to support what you believe in rather than stick to the libertarian ideal.

In the same way, I support gay people, but I don't support government restrictions on hiring practices. It's my belief that supporting the latter, even for "good" reasons, will do more harm in the long run to "allow us to live our lives as we [see] fit." You may believe differently, I just wanted to make sure you considered the ramifications (if any, since I may be totally wrong too).

Ironically, I almost came down on the gun-rights side for Florida's recent bill preventing companies from firing based on guns in the parking lot. I would like companies to be able to do that whether the individual is gay, pregnant, religious, etc. but I realize the jerks just want to cover the butts and restrict gun users in this case. So I can totally emathize with you. :) It's frustrating though. :( (In the end I just decided to continue living as normal like any other downtrodden group.)
 
"Fred has cancer. Who is the VP?"

How about Condy Rice?

She's smart as hell, appears to have little tolerance for BS, and is a good support player. I wouldn't mind her for president, but I think her talents are better for "nuts & bolts" politics.

And of course, it takes that whole "wouldn't it be nice to have a woman in the White House" thing away from the Dems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top