Author Topic: Everything you need to know about Fred Thompson... (Read 1083 times)

bsdaddict · « **on:** May 30, 2007, 12:00:00 PM »

Everything you need to know about Fred Thompson is in the first sentance of this article...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4243.html

Quote

Fred Dalton Thompson is planning to enter the presidential race ... , announcing that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations

same old, same old... same old song and dance!

Charon · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2007, 12:56:39 PM »

He makes a good soundbite, but about the only area I agree with him on is the 2nd. So, should we sell out the rest of the BOR to protect the 2nd? Should we support bad social welfare or more bad business welfare? More government intrusion in our private lives? More tough on crime war on drugs war on flag burners?

It would be a tough choice between Fred and BillaryO'Bama -- I vote no. Even if we have to eat 4 years of full, Democratic big government heaven to match the last 8 years of neocon big government heaven. Maybe there would be some real Republicans or good thrird party folk in 2012 as a result.

Charon

Yeager · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2007, 01:31:01 PM »

Even if we have to eat 4 years of full, Democratic big government heaven to match the last 8 years of neocon big government
=====
you know what they say....."be careful what you ask for, you just might get it."

Having said that...........I will vote pro 2nd amendment over all other issues. Life is a risky business, If I have a gun, I have a chance.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #3 on:** May 30, 2007, 01:36:17 PM »

Thompson is closer to a true conservative than anyone in the race who actually has a good chance of getting elected.

And at this point, I'm not willing to either sit one out, or vote for the greater of two evils, in hopes of getting a better candidate down the road in 4-8 years. Too much damage can be done these days. IF we had fewer screaming left wing weenie liberals on the bench and in Congress it MIGHT be different.

Charon · « **Reply #4 on:** May 30, 2007, 02:04:59 PM »

Quote

And at this point, I'm not willing to either sit one out, or vote for the greater of two evils, in hopes of getting a better candidate down the road in 4-8 years. Too much damage can be done these days. IF we had fewer screaming left wing weenie liberals on the bench and in Congress it MIGHT be different.

They expect nothing else. Both parties. That's why we have these "all or nothing" platforms full of push button issues. Obviously, the Republican Party approves of the policies of McCain and Giuliani. If you support the party on these choices you cannot expect any change for the better. As much as I love the 2nd I am no longer going to let them leverage my fears and concerns like some powerless child afraid of the "what if." They need to be taught that at least some percentage of us are paying attention, and will act on their failures and shortcomings.

FWIW, from my perspective big government social conservatism is no more desirable than big government liberal socialism. Gay Rights - not my business. Prayer in School - leave it for church. Flag burning - deplorable but freedom isn't easy. Tough on crime or terrorism fear - not at the expense of the BOR. I'll live with the risk. Fred's invasive social conservatism is as big a drawback as Billary O'Bamas handout state.

Charon

LePaul · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2007, 06:22:38 PM »

When Guliaini said he'd have his wife sit in on classified meetings....my heart sank.

We elect him, not his wife's advice on what he should do.

We already went thru that with BillaryCare in the early 90s.

So for me, Thompson and Romney look the most promising.

RedTop · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2007, 06:38:03 PM »

Cool.

Gumbeau · « **Reply #7 on:** May 30, 2007, 06:58:00 PM »

Fred Thompson is the conservative in the field.

Before bsd starts screaming "Ron Paul" I'll answer him with Ron Paul is a pretend conservative. He is a conspiracy theorist pretending to be conservative.

Charon · « **Reply #8 on:** May 30, 2007, 08:29:14 PM »

Quote

Ron Paul is a pretend conservative.

He is the ONLY conservative in the field, because traditional paleoconservative principals reflected a strong libertarian streak. I really prefer a more centrist libertarian, but he's the best (and as Lazs points out almost certainly unelectable) conservative of the bunch.

The jokers in the White House today and in the current Republican field wouldn't know a conservative if it bit them in the ass. Don't fall for the "Ford vs. Chevy" coolaid they dish out in their 30 second soundbits. As unelectable as Paul is (likely) they are scared that some increasing percentage of the people may actually listen to him and realize that America was not founded with a big governement (Republican or Democrat) agenda. Our founding fathers would be shocked to see what government has become today, even the staunch Federalists.

As Ike said in 1964 at the Republican National Convention

Quote

The next half century, beginning shortly before World War I and marked later by the Great Depression, World War II and the Korean Conflict, ushered in a season of troubles. In the last thirty-two years, our political opponents have controlled the executive branch of the Federal Government for twenty-four, and the Congress for twenty-eight. During this period our money was recklessly devalues, with great hardship visited upon much of our citizenry. The expansion of federal influence was made permanent policy, even though its miserable lack of success in the economic arena persisted until the violent demands of war obscured the unhappy failure. The centralizing process even went so far as to include an attempt, by summary executive power, to seize the steel industry.

Some of these acts and laws were necessary - others not - but the sinister trend toward paternalism, which now again grows apace, was interrupted only by the eight-year determination of a Republican administration in the 1950's. That administration stood for integrity in government. It stood for fiscal responsibility, including disciplined management of public spending. It supported our private competitive enterprise system. It insisted that all public responsibilities be carried out, wherever possible, by local and state governments; by the federal government only when necessary.

Our party stood also for a sound foreign policy, within which every critical development would be carefully judged and consistent action forthrightly taken. Recognizing that in this troubled and threatened world, security forces unmatched in efficiency and strength are necessary to sustain the peace, our party provided them. At the same time it insisted upon avoiding the peaks and valleys in military activity that spell, always, waste and extravagance.

Sounds a lot like Ron Paul, actually. Tough Paul has more of that anarchist streak -- a bit too much but refreshing none the less.

BTW, before ya go hatin' FDR -- give props to Alexander Hamilton

Charon

bsdaddict · « **Reply #9 on:** May 30, 2007, 09:03:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
He is the ONLY conservative in the field, because traditional paleoconservative principals reflected a strong libertarian streak. I really prefer a more centrist libertarian, but he's the best (and as Lazs points out almost certainly unelectable) conservative of the bunch.

The jokers in the White House today and in the current Republican field wouldn't know a conservative if it bit them in the ass. Don't fall for the "Ford vs. Chevy" coolaid they dish out in their 30 second soundbits. As unelectable as Paul is (likely) they are scared that some increasing percentage of the people may actually listen to him and realize that America was not founded with a big governement (Republican or Democrat) agenda. Our founding fathers would be shocked to see what government has become today, even the staunch Federalists.

As Ike said in 1964 at the Republican National Convention

Sounds a lot like Ron Paul, actually. Tough Paul has more of that anarchist streak -- a bit too much but refreshing none the less.

BTW, before ya go hatin' FDR -- give props to Alexander Hamilton

Charon

thank you... I was going to go on about how SOMEONE doesn't have a clue what a REAL CONSERVATIVE is, but now I don't have to. Thank you.

Gumbeau · « **Reply #10 on:** May 30, 2007, 09:46:06 PM »

There is a BIG difference between conservative and paranoid, isolationist, populist tinfoil hat claptrap.

Ron Paul only fools the fools.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 30, 2007, 10:00:40 PM »

Umm, so libertarians are now conspiracy tin foil theorists?

Charon · « **Reply #12 on:** May 30, 2007, 10:49:00 PM »

Quote

There is a BIG difference between conservative and paranoid, isolationist, populist tinfoil hat claptrap.

Ron Paul only fools the fools.

Please outline, specifically, his paranoid, isolationist and (this is the real shiner) "populist" viewpoints (one could only hope that libertarian philosophy would become capable of a populism some day). Fools like Ike or the Founding Fathers would fully appreciate Paul's positions on the issues since he conforms pretty rigidly to their stated views.

"Conservative" is nothing more than a word today, that has little meaning even compared to what was common in the 1970s. The same with "liberal." Just words in tag lines used to support the brand like "less filling, tastes great." My big government can beat up your big government. Words to let you know who to push the button for come election day. For example, anyone who thinks the Bush administration fits the traditional definition of conservative has a short memory.

On further review, I was, frankly, a bit harsh on Fred. He does talk a smaller federal government, but on the specifics he is somewhat of a mixed bag on civil rights, economic policy and foreign policy. There are worse out there, but he's about average in the current field with the exception of social issues (against my viewpoint) and on the 2nd (which I support). A mixed bag on the whole crime and rights thing too. I may have been a bit hasty, maybe not -- need to see some more specifics on current issues instead of his past voting record. He "seems" to be taking a firmer viewpoint on immigration than the rest of the pack and firmer than his past voting record would suggest.

Charon

Sandman · « **Reply #13 on:** May 31, 2007, 12:44:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Umm, so libertarians are now conspiracy tin foil theorists?

This should be good...

Shuckins · « **Reply #14 on:** May 31, 2007, 07:49:35 AM »

The possible pairing of candidates for a Republican ticket in 2008 would be a good deal more intriguing with Thompson in the race: Ron Paul and Thompson, or Mitt Romney and Thompson....

Either combination could prove lethal to Democratic hopes.