Republican Debate

[lazs2]

seems that you are still better off voting for any republican over any democrat.

With a billary or osamabama in the whitehouse right now.. we would have an "immigration bill" that would give a pass to any third world family willing to break into the country... they (the democrats) feel (right down party lines) that this bill is not leinient enough... that is unfair to illegals that are here and future illegals.

We would not be seeing even this compromise..  a much worse bill would already be signed.

The only reason this bill will not pass is because of republicans.

lazs

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by lazs2
that is unfair to illegals that are here and future illegals.

How dare you have such disrespect for these people by reffering to them as adjectives, and the adjective "illegal" at that.  They're "irregular migrants," you horrible man you.

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Flatbar
Now, don't let my blathering bother you guys on the right, although here in AH land you may be in the majority, out in the real world you guys are still among the 30%ers who still belive in GWB. The rest of us, the majority of the country that is, have awakened.

I see you are not a gun-owner.  You're digging your own grave.

[lazs2]

Yeah.. they are not illegals.. nothing is illegal.. fine with me.

drug dealers are simply undocumented pharmasists...

If I need to get somewhere I should be able to speed because I am simply an undocumented emergency vehicle.  

A burglar or a thief  is merely an undocumented politician.

lazs

[Shuckins]

If, by some freak chance, the race ends up being between Clinton and Huckabee, I'll hold my nose and vote....libertarian....or else abstain from voting altogether.



Flatbar....if the race should offer the choice between Clinton and Thompson you will find out very quickly how that 30% of Republicans will expand to an electoral majority.  Many voters may have turned against Bush, but he won't be running in 2008.  Faced with the choice of a socialist who espouses confiscatory taxes and government interference in every aspect of American life, including the family, or an old-style, Reaganesque Republican, the current polling numbers will change very quickly.

[Yeager]

out in the real world you guys are still among the 30%ers who still belive in GWB.
====
pfffft......Keep fooling yourself and we will ALL be better for it.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Shuckins
If, by some freak chance, the race ends up being between Clinton and Huckabee, I'll hold my nose and vote....libertarian....or else abstain from voting altogether.

yup, ditto...

Flatbar....if the race should offer the choice between Clinton and Thompson you will find out very quickly how that 30% of Republicans will expand to an electoral majority.  Many voters may have turned against Bush, but he won't be running in 2008.  Faced with the choice of a socialist who espouses confiscatory taxes and government interference in every aspect of American life, including the family, or an old-style, Reaganesque Republican, the current polling numbers will change very quickly.

did you just refer to Fred Thompson as a Reaganesque Republican?  LMAO    Ron Paul's the only Reaganesque candidate running.  Fred Thompson's  not a true conservative, he's a neo-con and there's nothing  Reaganesque about that.  However, IMO his politics won't even be considered.  He's just a famous face with a grandfatherly-type sounding voice.  He'll make people "feel safe" just by talking...  awwww, how cute...  Meanwhile, the neo-con agenda will be furthered and America will continue it's slide towards totalitarianism.  I, for one, won't vote for him...

[tedrbr]

I'd like a fresh, valid third party from which to choose a candidate please.  These other two are rotten.

[john9001]

Originally posted by lazs2
drug dealers are simply undocumented pharmasists..
 

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by tedrbr
I'd like a fresh, valid third party from which to choose a candidate please.  These other two are rotten.

I wish a third party could work, just don't see it happening unfortunately.  The GOP and the Dems have a lock on the brainless voters who just "can't let the other guys win".  That's why I'm so excited about Ron Paul running, it's a rare chance for Liberty to have a freedom-loving candidate running in a major party.  We need to take over the GOP and return it to its conservative roots.  The third parties have the deck stacked against them to the extent that they just don't have a chance.

[Shuckins]

Actually, bs, Thompson is an old-style Federalistic Republican....which makes him a "paleo-con" I guess.  He believes in a government system where the Federal government exercises only enumerated powers, and all remaining powers are delegated to the states.

Read a couple of blogs about him the other day.  His philosophy is summed up by the statement, "Is this something that the government needs to get involved in, and if so which level of government?"

That is a very old, not new, concept.

The term "neo-con" is oft applied willy-nilly to Republicans who hold many diverse political viewpoints.  When someone comes up with a definition for "neo-con" that everyone can agree with, let us know.  Then we can decide for ourselves whether or not Fred Thompson meets the definition.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Actually, bs, Thompson is an old-style Federalistic Republican....which makes him a "paleo-con" I guess.  He believes in a government system where the Federal government exercises only enumerated powers, and all remaining powers are delegated to the states.

Read a couple of blogs about him the other day.  His philosophy is summed up by the statement, "Is this something that the government needs to get involved in, and if so which level of government?"

That is a very old, not new, concept.

The term "neo-con" is oft applied willy-nilly to Republicans who hold many diverse political viewpoints.  When someone comes up with a definition for "neo-con" that everyone can agree with, let us know.  Then we can decide for ourselves whether or not Fred Thompson meets the definition.

(psst, it's bsd...)

I wish I had more time to respond to your points.  I'm in the midst of getting ready to head down to Philly to visit the folks for the weekend, so this copy/paste will have to suffice for now.  I'll be happy to continue this conversation when I return...

"While in congress, Thompson, reportedly a good friend of Senator John McCain, (R-AZ) supported two obviously anti-free market bills: the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act and the Shays-Meehan bill restricting issue ads. He is also a member of Council on Foreign Relations, a main think-tank behind the idea of a North American Union that would eventually dissolve borders between Mexico, Canada and the United States to create one big super-nation. Thompson also seems to believe in a robust military presence worldwide and apparently advocates continued US military involvement in Iraq. Ron Paul's small government credentials extend beyond rhetoric, and even the many editorials and position papers he has authored. Ron Paul has consistently voted a constitutionalist line in congress, and thus his actions match his sentiments. He is neither a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, nor any other Washington think tank that advocates similar views." ((A vote for Fred Thompson is a vote for world government...may as well be voting directly for the United Nations because that is what's happening every time a Pro-One World Order, Globalist is voted in.)) From the page: "Should Fred Thompson enter the 2008 presidential race, he would become the fifth member of the globalist, NWO's Council on Foreign Relations to do so, joining fellow CFR-members, US Senator John McCain, (former VA) Gov. Jim Gilmore, AZ) Gov. Bill Richardson, and US Senator Chris Dodd. Furthermore, former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich, also a member of the CFR, is also considering entering the presidential race later this Fall (perhaps if enough conservatives don't take the bait and swallow the lie that globalist, First Amendment free-speech enemy Fred Thompson is a "conservative")."

[CHECKERS]

Originally posted by lazs2
seems that you are still better off voting for any republican over any democrat.

With a billary or osamabama in the whitehouse right now.. we would have an "immigration bill" that would give a pass to any third world family willing to break into the country... they (the democrats) feel (right down party lines) that this bill is not leinient enough... that is unfair to illegals that are here and future illegals.

We would not be seeing even this compromise..  a much worse bill would already be signed.

The only reason this bill will not pass is because of republicans.

lazs

 Laz,
 I understand that The few Republicans totally rejecting this POS & voting the Bill  down, is the only reason that POS Bill  hasn't passed . Also I would never vote for any  "crank-suckers on the Socialist/Democratic Party" , no matter what the hell they come up with !  

  Regards,
 Bob/CHECKERS

[Shuckins]

Well bsd , it appears, from the wording of the text, that it was taken from a Ron Paul for President blog.  The assessment of the committees and organizations that Thompson is a member of was universally critical, and subjective at best.  The assessment of them is based on things they have not yet done, but may be considering.

Because of obvious abuses of the campaign finance system there have been a lot of people on both sides of the political aisle calling for its reform.  Thompson had a great deal of company on this issue.  Are you going to say it wasn't needed?  

I have more trouble supporting the ban on political ads by special interest groups immediately prior to an election;  a clear violation of freedom of speech in my opinion.  Buy should I refuse to vote for Thompson because of what a Ron Paul blog says about his stance on this issue?  I think not....it's a single issue....and I have been unable to verify how he voted on it, or determine "why" he voted for it.



Have a nice trip.


Regards, Shuckins

[mars01]

Now, the following are the senators who voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. They are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was no voting representative.

How the Phuck is that even on the table.  My blood boils when we talk about myself and future generations not seeing social security and these stunninghunks are talking about giving it to ***** Illegals who most likely have never paid taxes and into it to begin with.  WTF!

Am I missing something here.  Fk it why don't we just include Europe, Asia and the rest of the world.   WTF!