cbsbyte
Member
Well that is still 1-5% more than Ron Paul.
Fred Thompson's Timing
- Thread starter Colt
- Start date
- Status
Well that is still 1-5% more than Ron Paul.
Libertyteeth
Member
Fred Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This extremely important and powerful insider Establishment foreign policy and media think tank has long been linked to internationalism, global government, the New World Order, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council...eign_Relations
Confirmation that Fred Thompson is a
member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council...ouncil_members
Check out the other members.
This is consistent with his support for the Patriot Act.
Thompson won't be getting my vote, it will go to Ron Paul in the Republican primary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council...eign_Relations
Confirmation that Fred Thompson is a
member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council...ouncil_members
Check out the other members.
This is consistent with his support for the Patriot Act.
Thompson won't be getting my vote, it will go to Ron Paul in the Republican primary.
GoRon
Member
Ron Paul is so 1988.
NickEllis
Member
And Bill Richardson LOVES freedom?
Supports minority preferences for government contracts. (Nov 1996)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Crack down on illegal drug labs. (Jan 2004)
No legalization: drugs play an insidious role in crime. (Oct 2002)
Mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs. (Nov 1996)
NAFTA critically important for US as well as Mexico. (Nov 2005)
Expand regional trade with Chihuahua. (Oct 2002)
Supports NAFTA, GATT, & WTO. (Nov 1996)
Increase access to affordable health care. (Jan 2004)
Consolidate mental health and substance abuse therapy needs. (Jan 2004)
Restrain Medicaid costs and maintain benefits. (Jan 2004)
Affordable access to healthcare for all New Mexicans. (Oct 2002)
these are debateable even here at THR:
Withdraw US troops by end of 2007, with no residual force. (Apr 2007)
Iraq policy is a massive failure; Iraq is in civil war. (Apr 2007)
Congress should de-fund and de-authorize the war. (Apr 2007)
(All of these I strongly disagree with for practical and political reasons, though I did not agree with starting a war without Congress declaring war)
strongly authorized Homeland Security Department at federal AND state level. (Oct 2002)
Though I will say that generally he has been pro gun, as an assistant House whip during the Clinton years, Richardson helped push the "assault weapon" ban over the top.
As for Richardson not voting for the Patriot Act, was he even around for that decision? Seems as though alot of these hot topics are non-issues precisely because he's a governor, and not in a place to put his name on the record. Do YOU trust a Democrat who hasn't been forced to put his name to those contentious issues?
As for Fred Thompson's voting record:
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)
Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
Voted YES on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)
Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
Voted YES on Internet sales tax moratorium. (Oct 1998)
Voted YES on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)
Look, I actually like Bill Richardson as a person and as a governor. He is doing a great job in NM, apparently, and even the republicans there speak highly of him. Same as pretty much every Republican in TN speaks highly of Thompson. However, everyone has weak points. You just have to chose which are the most important. I would just say that overall, the Democratic ballot is going to push us further down that slope towards becoming a socialist state. It constitutes the very lifeblood of the party, and their presuppositions on economics, legalities, and personal rights are impossible to avoid. However, I see Thompson as being overall fiscally and socially conservative, and in many many ways representing a decentralization of power from Washington. Perhaps this is a pipe-dream, but its what he says he is pushing for, and he has always told the truth before in his election promises. I won't fault him now.
Have to taken a look at the full membership list of the Council on Foreign Relations? Do you know the requirements to join that list? Pretty much every influencial businessman in the US is on that list, with WIDELY different views of foreign and domestic policy. The argument that FT is on the CFR is a red herring.
Its easy to play the game when you define the rules. He didn't "vote against freedom" (as if it were some anthropomorphized concept); in one of the most chaotic and terrifying times our country has every seen, along with Brownback and pretty much every conservative members in congress (excepting my hero, Dr. Paul), FT voted for the Patriot Act. They overstepped their bounds. Does the rest of his voting record sound as though he is an authoritarian, statist conspirator? I'm not seeing that in his record at all.
Basically, if it comes down to Ron Paul having earned his way into a place of contention for the Ballot in November, he gets my vote for the Primaries. He had better start doing a heck of a lot better in getting himself and his views out there. If he remains unable to communicate to the majority of voters, and remains unable to articulate a decent foreign policy, he will have no place in this race. Then, if it comes down to Fred Thompson or Bill Richardson (ignoring the obvious choice between FT vs. Hillary/Barack/etc), I will NOT vote to give the Statist Left a "mandate for change", with the House, the Senate, and the Executive branch. Did you SEE what the "Liberal Revolution" did for Canada?
Do you WANT to change the very substructure of our government? Sorry, can't go there.ScottsGT
Member
Timing is due to Law and Order. He has a contract with them. If he announces now, they will not be allowed to air any episode with him in it. After the season is over, he will announce. Next week?
Hkmp5sd
Member
How soon we forget.
When president Ronald Reagan was considering invading Nicaragua, he issued a series of executive orders that provided the Federal Emergency Management Agency with broad powers in the event of a crisis such as violent and widespread internal dissent or national opposition against a U.S. military invasion abroad.
Even the Clinton administration got into the act with "Army Regulation 210–35 - Civilian Inmate Labor Program" originally published in 1997.
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf
Sry0fcr
Member
I’m really sick of the defeatist “he can’t win” attitude about Ron Paul. Anyone can win if people vote for him and Dr. Paul has an appeal that crosses party lines, we just need to get him the nomination. If “electability” is a consideration in your choice at all you’re the one throwing away your vote. I hope that for the first time in decades people are principled enough to vote for their idea of the best candidate without letting the mainstream media dictate your choice. In the words of Rammstein, “Let me hear you make decisions, without your television.” If you like Fred Thompson great, but don’t vote for him because you think he has a better chance. It’s time we stop “playing” politics.
Erebus
Member
Well that is still 1-5% more than Ron Paul.
Another one with no chance.
I'm voting for Fred Thompson. He is as close to Reagan as we will likely see in my lifetime.
ROTFLMAO
Maybe you're new, but some of us have been hearing that rant for so long, it's nothing but funny. If you don't play, you don't win. Libertarians ought to know this by now. What makes Libertarians unelectable is that we haven't learned a damn thing about GETTING any of us elected in 36 years.
And if you think the MSM dictated the last couple of Presidential elections, you might want to consider an exam. You might be catching Dan Rather's Disease.
Being a Libertarian is like being a member of a cult-religious football team that believes that holding practice is a sin, and trying to win a game is a damnable offense. BTW I worked pretty hard on an election that the city newspaper actually thought we could win, with a well-known candidate for Mayor, after our old Mayor resigned in disgrace. Nope. 1% as usual. They took a lot of our ideas, so I'm okay with having worked on the campaign, but I learned that we need to GET REAL.
Here's what the former candidate for mayor wrote about Ron Paul. His name is Richard Rider, and he's one of the most active and well-known Libertarians on the Coast. He probably has the greatest libertarian impact in the region, as head of San Diego Tax Fighters, which is non-partisan. He's both savvy and realistic. To the naive, that reads "cynical", but think about it anyway.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
That's my opinion, but I realize it's only an opinion.
ConfuseUs
Member
For a guy who isn't officially in the race and has done nothing more to indicate he will run other than say "I find that possibility interesting" Fred Thompson is doing very well at his run for president. Every current GOP front-runner is looking over at Fred right now waiting for an announcement either way. I doubt that Ron Paul will beat Fred in the primaries if Fred is running. It may not be proven fact that Ron Paul is unelectable to POTUS, but I am confident enough in the odds to say that it might as well be.
Titan6
member
I agree Paul's odds are quite long. He is still a better choice than Fred though. Much more conservative as well.
pcosmar
member
So a TV show is more important than service to the Country?
I don't think so.
I find him interesting, somewhat. In a less evil sort of way.
I will work at getting Ron Paul known and elected.
Fred Thompson has a contractual obligation for Law & Order. If he were to declare now, they couldn't air the final episodes, and sweeps week is 3 weeks away. He also has a contract with CBS radio, I believe.
He's sticking by his word and honoring his commitment. Besides, there's no hurry, as the article reads.
Personally, I'd be happy to see him declare on July 4th.
longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
Boy the Paulites are getting pretty desperate to smear Fred if they are insinuating that he cares more for "Law & Order" than his country.
BTW it isn't about choosing the lesser of two evils or the more electable candidate. Fred would be a much better POTUS period. Mr. Paul is right on in his domestic policies but his foreign policy ideas are a recipe for disaster, we're the United States not Portugal.
BTW it isn't about choosing the lesser of two evils or the more electable candidate. Fred would be a much better POTUS period. Mr. Paul is right on in his domestic policies but his foreign policy ideas are a recipe for disaster, we're the United States not Portugal.Titan6
member
That is a bunch of BS. Why don't you post the whole article? Why don't you post a real resource?
tom barthel
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Messages
- 57
Thus far, none of the candidates from the demican or republicrat party appeal to me. This will probably be my last election. I'm considering a non vote protest. Why should anyone need to choose the lesser of evils? I think I'll leave this one up to God. I will pray for my nation. Any nation with free elections deserves the government it gets.
Hkmp5sd
Member
Well, you see, *I* am the original source. I personally remember this from the 1980's. Unfortunately, the internet didn't exist back then, so I cannot list you endless points of reference. However, you can feel free to find any evidence proving me wrong. It seems there are several articles written in 2002-2004 that reference what I'm speaking about. Go for it.
Next you're going to tell me Reagan knew nothing about Iran-Contra.
Sistema1927
Member
That is just silly. Do you want a President who does not honor his contractual responsibilities?
It is still very early, and a couple of weeks from now won't be too late. Besides, he doesn't have to give "equal time" to other candidates to counter the amount of air time that he gets on L&O. Once he announces, watch all of this "free" publicity evaporate. Right now there is enough speculation about his candidacy that every minute that he is on TV is more precious than any campaign commercial.
It's all good.
Titan6
member
The source is you? I will take it for what it is worth...
Why squabble over two pro 2A candidates?
1- There are several other rights on the BOR that I am attached to for sentimental reasons. I would rather not have someone in office who is trying to get rid of them. The 2A is only the right of last resort.
2- The candidate in question has real health issues. If he dies in office, as seems likely who takes over?
3- The country needs a new direction not more of the same.
Why squabble over two pro 2A candidates?
1- There are several other rights on the BOR that I am attached to for sentimental reasons. I would rather not have someone in office who is trying to get rid of them. The 2A is only the right of last resort.
2- The candidate in question has real health issues. If he dies in office, as seems likely who takes over?
3- The country needs a new direction not more of the same.
longhorngunman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 852
1. I don't see Fred trying to get rid of any of them. In fact, besides Paul he talks up the Constitution more than anybody else.
2. What health issues? His cancer was never active and Rudy and McCain have both had cancer before too, btw Paul is much older than Thompson, seems he's more likely to croak than any of them.
3. Just changing direction doesn't mean it's a change for the good. Besides, the economy is doing great and we are fighting and killing our determined enemies over there instead of here at a minimal loss (no loss of Americans is minimal but by judgeing past wars it is). Yes things could be better but they could be Much, much worse.
I really don't mean to knock Mr. Paul, he seems like a good, decent man but once the primary is settled and hopefully Fred is at the top and not one of the three stooges, you'll realize that we have a great choice compared to the Democrat candidate and jump on the bandwagon.
2. What health issues? His cancer was never active and Rudy and McCain have both had cancer before too, btw Paul is much older than Thompson, seems he's more likely to croak than any of them.
3. Just changing direction doesn't mean it's a change for the good. Besides, the economy is doing great and we are fighting and killing our determined enemies over there instead of here at a minimal loss (no loss of Americans is minimal but by judgeing past wars it is). Yes things could be better but they could be Much, much worse.
I really don't mean to knock Mr. Paul, he seems like a good, decent man but once the primary is settled and hopefully Fred is at the top and not one of the three stooges, you'll realize that we have a great choice compared to the Democrat candidate and jump on the bandwagon.
- Status
