View Full Version : Fred Thompson Is About To Run For President!
Here is a link to the first official Fred Thompson website as he prepares to announce his canidacy for President of the United States, probably around July 4th.
http://www.imwithfred.com/index.aspx
Jack Shephard
06-06-2007, 07:39 AM
Here is a link to the first official Fred Thompson website as he prepares to announce his canidacy for President of the United States, probably around July 4th.
http://www.imwithfred.com/index.aspx
I think he would do good at laying down the "Law and Order." I would vote for him. He is Tennesean, but also a good canidate!
Steve Epley
06-06-2007, 08:55 AM
I heard him last night on Hannity the only sane voice I have heard during this election. If he runs I vote if not I stay home. The top three Republicans are Democrats and I ain't voting for them.
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 09:03 AM
I heard him last night on Hannity the only sane voice I have heard during this election. If he runs I vote if not I stay home. The top three Republicans are Democrats and I ain't voting for them.
What do you find insane about Ron Pauls stand on the issues?
Steve Epley
06-06-2007, 09:06 AM
What do you find insane about Ron Pauls stand on the issues?
The guy is a wacko to put it kindly and has as much a chance to win as the Green party canidate.
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 09:07 AM
The guy is a wacko to put it kindly and has as much a chance to win as the Green party canidate.
I repeat...
What is it about his stand on the issues that you find insane.
Brett Prince
06-06-2007, 09:16 AM
I heard him last night on Hannity the only sane voice I have heard during this election. If he runs I vote if not I stay home. The top three Republicans are Democrats and I ain't voting for them.
You consider Romney a Democrat?
You must know more than I. Would you elaborate? My biggest problem with Romney has been his previous abortion stance. But, I have liked mos of what I have heard.
Thompson does appear to be a better, more consistent choice.
As for Rudy and McCain--I wholeheartedly agree with your take.
Steve Epley
06-06-2007, 09:20 AM
You consider Romney a Democrat?
You must know more than I. Would you elaborate? My biggest problem with Romney has been his previous abortion stance. But, I have liked mos of what I have heard.
Thompson does appear to be a better, more consistent choice.
As for Rudy and McCain--I wholeheartedly agree with your take.
I think Romney is a fake either he is or is not against abortion and same sex marriages. If his conversion is righteous good but who wants to take a chance on it. The man is govenor of Mas. evidently he can blend I don't won't a blender.
AGAPE
06-06-2007, 10:02 AM
WHAT about Huckabee (sp) and Brownback (sp)
Who should Thompson pick for vp??
Thompson is starting to appeal to me .... "Wait and See" approach
I think Fred Thompson is just another big government, globalist, interventionist Republicrat. This talk about his potential candidacy is a media ploy trying to make the "race" (note how they have turned this into the sin of gambling) more interesting.
Did he really accomplish anything while in the Senate that distinguishes him from the other Republicrats?
As for Ron Paul, many of his positions are those conservative Republicans touted and ran on when the American people gave them control of Congress in 1994.
chaotic_resolve
06-06-2007, 10:18 AM
Who should Thompson pick for vp??
I think a Fred Thompson/Ron Paul ticket would be fun. :sly
AGAPE
06-06-2007, 10:21 AM
I think a Fred Thompson/Ron Paul ticket would be fun. :sly
Yes, but don't you think that there needs to be a moderate to get the swing voters???
Say Thompson and Romney???
anybody but Hillary:search
WHAT about Huckabee (sp) and Brownback (sp)
Who should Thompson pick for vp??
I like both but I dont think they are really electable.
The problem for the republicans is, America for what ever reason has bought into the democrat line that we have failed in Iraq.
that attches itself to all republicans. So you have to have some kind of wider appeal than just being a good republican to be elected.
Brownback is awesome and in a normal election cycle might be the guy I would vote for but I do not believe he is electable.
Also, MANY moderate/independants are turned off to electing a governer to be president. The dont care much for Bill Clinton or GWB and they have attached that stigma to the office.
The next president will have to come from some other background (which is very odd because historically America loves to elect Governors. )
chaotic_resolve
06-06-2007, 10:22 AM
I don't think Romney would take a VP position.
Could be Thompson/Chuck Hagel
I think a Fred Thompson/Ron Paul ticket would be fun. :sly
Ron Paul is not a vaiable candidate for anything outside his own district. sorry. no matter what one thinks of his standl, the preception is that he is a full blown nut. Preception is reality.
I don't think Romney would take a VP position.
Could be Thompson/Chuck Hagel
If you want conservitives to spit in your face. the best thing chuck hagel could do for this country is move to france.
I think Fred Thompson is just another big government, globalist, interventionist Republicrat. This talk about his potential candidacy is a media ploy trying to make the "race" (note how they have turned this into the sin of gambling) more interesting.
Did he really accomplish anything while in the Senate that distinguishes him from the other Republicrats?
As for Ron Paul, many of his positions are those conservative Republicans touted and ran on when the American people gave them control of Congress in 1994.
good for you.
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 10:33 AM
Ron Paul is not a vaiable candidate for anything outside his own district. sorry. no matter what one thinks of his standl, the preception is that he is a full blown nut. Preception is reality.
Have you seen the polls from last night?
bishopnl
06-06-2007, 10:54 AM
Is Fred Thompson a Small-Government Conservative?
With former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson creeping ever closer to a formal announcement that he will run for president, it is worth asking whether he is the genuine small-government conservative that has been missing from the top tier of the Republican field (with all due apologies to Ron Paul). A preliminary look at his record suggests that while he is not quite the second coming of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan, he may be much better on most issues than the alternatives.
During his eight years in the Senate, Thompson had a solid record as a fiscal conservative. The National Taxpayers Union gives him the third highest marks of any candidate (trailing only Paul and Rep. Tom Tancredo). While he sponsored or cosponsored legislation over the course of his career that would have resulted in a net increase in federal spending of $3.1 billion, that is the smallest increase among the contenders. (By comparison, John McCain would have increased spending by $36.9 billion). He generally shared McCain’s opposition to pork barrel spending and earmarks, and voted against the 2002 farm bill. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and has generally been solid in support of tax reduction.
He has been a consistent supporter of entitlement reform, voting to means-test Medicare and supporting personal accounts for Social Security.
His record on free trade is solid. In the past he has been supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, but has been critical of the current bill, shifting toward a “control the borders first” position. Still, he has not been Tancredo-like in his anti-immigration statements.
On federalism, there may be no better candidate. His Senate record is replete with examples of his being the lone opponent of legislation that he thought undercut federalist principles. He took this position even on legislation that was otherwise supported by conservatives. He opposes federal action to prohibit gay marriage on federalist grounds, although he supports state bans. One blight on this record is his vote in favor of No Child Left Behind.
On the other hand, he supported McCain-Feingold, although he has now backed away from that position, suggesting the law has been overtaken by events. He told John Fund that he was now willing to consider scrapping campaign finance in favor of full disclosure. And his position on civil liberties generally is troubling. He supported the anti-flag burning constitutional amendment and expansion of federal police powers generally. So far he has given no suggestion that he breaks with the Bush administration on important issues like habeas corpus, torture, and surveillance.
On foreign policy he has been a hawk, and supports continuing the war in Iraq. Alas, that seems standard for the GOP these days, but Thompson appears to also take the neoconservative line on Iran, North Korea, and China. It’s hard to be a small-government conservative while favoring widespread military intervention. War is a big-government program.
Of course, spending the last several years in Hollywood has enabled Thompson to avoid taking positions on many current issues. Once he gets in the race, Thompson will have to be much more specific about his positions. But, given the fact that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani are clearly big-government conservatives, Thompson has an opportunity to seize the small-government mantle.
From the Cato Institute.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/05/31/is-fred-thompson-a-small-government-conservative/
Well, he might be slightly better than Guliani, McCain, or Romney. I will not vote for any of those three if that's who ends up being the nominee. The thing that troubles me about Thompson is his stance on widespread military intervention. It also bothers me that he supported No Child Left Behind and McCain Feingold...but at least he's admitting to making a mistake on the latter. Several of his other stances are pretty likeable.
I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's stances, but it's always irritating that the major argument against him is "he's a nut." That's a well thought out position, I'm sure. :rolleyes2 It's as if the majority of neoconservatives can no longer think for themselves.
I heard him last night on Hannity the only sane voice I have heard during this election. If he runs I vote if not I stay home. The top three Republicans are Democrats and I ain't voting for them.
He is like Reagan in that he has a core set of values that he clearly states. His positions are not what is polling highly at the moment.
He calls it like he sees it and I think he is calling it like a majority of Americans see it (at least I hope still a majority. A few more years of the floodgate of illegal immigration and it it will be a minority).
Ron Paul is not a vaiable candidate for anything outside his own district. sorry. no matter what one thinks of his standl, the preception is that he is a full blown nut. Preception is reality.
Amen. Just the fact that he appeals so much to the black helicopter / conspiracy theorist crowd here at AFF should be enough to let folks know he is not a viable canidate. He has the Art Bell fan base sewn up though!
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 11:04 AM
Amen. Just the fact that he appeals so much to the black helicopter / conspiracy theorist crowd here at AFF should be enough to let folks know he is not a viable canidate. He has the Art Bell fan base sewn up though!
And there we have it...
The ever present black helicopter comment.
He had 54% of the vote on the CNN Who Won the debate poll...
But... not viable.
And... of course... when the others beat Ron Paul... it is proof Ron Paul is not viable...
But when Ron Paul wins it only means that there has been some manipulation of some kind.
Talk about conspiracy theorists!!!!!!!!!
I doubt very seriously that another Republican is going to the White House this election cycle.
Bowas
06-06-2007, 11:31 AM
And there we have it...
The ever present black helicopter comment.
He had 54% of the vote on the CNN Who Won the debate poll...
But... not viable.
And... of course... when the others beat Ron Paul... it is proof Ron Paul is not viable...
But when Ron Paul wins it only means that there has been some manipulation of some kind.
Talk about conspiracy theorists!!!!!!!!!
The only reason he cannot win is people are so manipulated by the "mainstream" media. One cannot hear his message over the blather of the pundits, and the pundits have declared, "nobody in their right mind" would ever vote for Ron Paul, and of course, the average person does not want to fall into the group of those not in their "right mind."
Media manipulation does work...even on us.
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 11:58 AM
The only reason he cannot win is people are so manipulated by the "mainstream" media. One cannot hear his message over the blather of the pundits, and the pundits have declared, "nobody in their right mind" would ever vote for Ron Paul, and of course, the average person does not want to fall into the group of those not in their "right mind."
Media manipulation does work...even on us.
I will continue to work for his campaign with hopes that he will win. The internet is also a strong source of information and the mainstream media does not have the complete control of our information they once had..
But... having said that...
I hear where you are coming from on this. I will march on with hope that other media sources and his inclusion in the debates will make enough difference but there is no denying the point you are making here.
Thompson appears to also take the neoconservative line on Iran, North Korea, and China. It’s hard to be a small-government conservative while favoring widespread military intervention. War is a big-government program.
War is a big government program ... but it keeps us safe ...
WWII singlehandedly took us out of the Great Depression ... War does add economic stimulus ....
Amen. Just the fact that he appeals so much to the black helicopter / conspiracy theorist crowd here at AFF should be enough to let folks know he is not a viable canidate. He has the Art Bell fan base sewn up though!
"west side of the rockies, you are on the air with Coast to Coast!"
LOL!
I doubt very seriously that another Republican is going to the White House this election cycle.
if I were setting odds, I would say you have a 60% chance of being right...and that scares me.
bishopnl
06-06-2007, 12:11 PM
War is a big government program ... but it keeps us safe ...
WWII singlehandedly took us out of the Great Depression ... War does add economic stimulus ....
Few economists would agree that WWII took us "singlehandedly" out of the depression. I agree it certaintly was a major factor. But are you seriously suggesting that we should go to war to stimulate the economy?
As for war keeping us safe...sometimes it does...and sometimes it doesn't.
AGAPE
06-06-2007, 12:18 PM
"west side of the rockies, you are on the air with Coast to Coast!"
LOL!
coast to coast.....now there's a nutcase program
Few economists would agree that WWII took us "singlehandedly" out of the depression. I agree it certaintly was a major factor. But are you seriously suggesting that we should go to war to stimulate the economy?
As for war keeping us safe...sometimes it does...and sometimes it doesn't.
I am not suggesting you go to war to stimulate the economy ... only suggesting that those that would like to lump defense spending w/ entitlement spending and pork bellying are LOONEY ... considering the threats around the world and maintaining our military supremacy ... I'd rather see gov't spending its bucks WISELY on keeping us safe
.... while of course it adds peripheral economic stimuli .... [for better, or worse]
Have you seen the polls from last night?Don't mind Ferd, he's just a typical American sheep that believes what the media and the political pundits tell him to believe. He spits upon the memory of the founding fathers by calling equating their policies with mental illness (since Ron Paul wants to return to their foreign policy of non-intervention and of actually having Congress declare war). For him, perception is reality - meaning that it doesn't matter how things really are it's how they are perceived that matters. So, following such ridiculousness, the Pharisees' perception that Jesus was a glutton was reality.
The only reason he cannot win is people are so manipulated by the "mainstream" media. One cannot hear his message over the blather of the pundits, and the pundits have declared, "nobody in their right mind" would ever vote for Ron Paul, and of course, the average person does not want to fall into the group of those not in their "right mind."
Media manipulation does work...even on us.FERD being a prime example.
Don't mind Ferd, he's just a typical American sheep that believes what the media and the political pundits tell him to believe. He spits upon the memory of the founding fathers by calling equating their policies with mental illness (since Ron Paul wants to return to their foreign policy of non-intervention and of actually having Congress declare war). For him, perception is reality - meaning that it doesn't matter how things really are it's how they are perceived that matters. So, following such ridiculousness, the Pharisees' perception that Jesus was a glutton was reality.
Chan ... Isolationism died a century ago ... keep up.
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 12:29 PM
Chan ... Isolationism died a century ago ... keep up.
Whose an isolationist?
bishopnl
06-06-2007, 12:33 PM
I am not suggesting you go to war to stimulate the economy ... only suggesting that those that would like to lump defense spending w/ entitlement spending and pork bellying are LOONEY ... considering the threats around the world and maintaining our military supremacy ... I'd rather see gov't spending its bucks WISELY on keeping us safe
.... while of course it adds peripheral economic stimuli .... [for better, or worse]
I doubt that the CATO institute was referring to all defense spending.
But the wars like the one in Iraq are not defensive wars, no matter how much we'd like to believe that they are. And I don't think that all money allocated to the military is being spent wisely. If you do then you've got your head in the sand.
bishopnl
06-06-2007, 12:36 PM
"Isolationism"
"Black Helicopters"
"Nut case"
Are all code words for, "My position is not very well thought out, and I don't really have a good answer for why I disagree with yours. I just know that I disagree, and I'm too lazy to find out why."
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 12:55 PM
"Isolationism"
"Black Helicopters"
"Nut case"
Are all code words for, "My position is not very well thought out, and I don't really have a good answer for why I disagree with yours. I just know that I disagree, and I'm too lazy to find out why."
Easy words to facilitate complete dismissal...
You pretty much hit it right on the head.
Easy words to facilitate complete dismissal...
You pretty much hit it right on the head.
How about "unrealistic"????:killinme
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 12:57 PM
How about "unrealistic"????:killinme
Sure... it's not as cliche' as the other tired words but we can add it to the list.
Thanks.
:)
bishopnl
06-06-2007, 01:02 PM
How about "unrealistic"????:killinme
Well, you could just say, "I'm too lazy or don't know enough to refute your argument or your candidate." It takes a little bit longer than just saying "Isolationism!" but at least it would be closer to the truth. ;)
Well, you could just say, "I'm too lazy or don't know enough to refute your argument or your candidate." It takes a little bit longer than just saying "Isolationism!" but at least it would be closer to the truth. ;)
No ... I will not play w/ bishopnl and d4t and other Paulite koolaid drinkers...
I'm a political realist ... Dr. No is as electable as Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, etc. ... for this reason I don't waste my time discussing fringe candidates.
There are some things that are predictable in American politics ... for example ...
WASP males are predictably elected ... all 42 presidents were so .. except for the Pope-loving JFK ...
A non-interventionist .... will NOT WIN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE NEAR FUTURE ... PERHAPS NOT IN A GENERATION ....
not to say that their voices are not needed ... they are ... and they hold an important role in our national discussions ... but they don't win elections
Just the way it is ...
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 01:26 PM
No ... I will not play w/ bishopnl and d4t and other Paulite koolaid drinkers...
I'm a political realist ... Dr. No is as electable as Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, etc. ... for this reason I don't waste my time discussing fringe candidates.
There are some things that are predictable in American politics ... for example ...
WASP males are predictably elected ... all 42 presidents were so .. except for the Pope-loving JFK ...
A non-interventionist .... will NOT WIN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE NEAR FUTURE ... PERHAPS NOT IN A GENERATION ....
not to say that their voices are not needed ... they are ... and they hold an important role in our national discussions ... but they don't win elections
Just the way it is ...
What about the polls from last night?
What about the polls from last night?
Perot, Forbes, and like ilk ... led in polls ... many times ... People like the message but will not vote for the messenger ...
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 01:29 PM
Perot, Forbes, and like ilk ... led in polls ... many times ... People like the message but will not vote for the messenger ...
What kind of numbers did they have?
I am not suggesting you go to war to stimulate the economy ... only suggesting that those that would like to lump defense spending w/ entitlement spending and pork bellying are LOONEY ... considering the threats around the world and maintaining our military supremacy ... I'd rather see gov't spending its bucks WISELY on keeping us safe
.... while of course it adds peripheral economic stimuli .... [for better, or worse]
I like the way you think...
FERD being a prime example.
...said the guy who thinks it is 1812.
Whose an isolationist?
we can start with Chan and Ron Paul. I assume that means you too.
What kind of numbers did they have?
Straw polls after a debate are just that ... grasping at straws. Put your energy behind a candidate that's electable.
lets play "lets make a deal"
D4T, the bishiop and chan can go make a thread and talk about politics and say what every you want, and i will stay away, and you guys will not drag the discussion about the real Republican party into the a side ditch.
how is that?
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 01:36 PM
lets play "lets make a deal"
D4T, the bishiop and chan can go make a thread and talk about politics and say what every you want, and i will stay away, and you guys will not drag the discussion about the real Republican party into the a side ditch.
how is that?
We are talking about the real republican party.
You are talking about neocon republicrats.
What Ron Paul stands for is what being a Republican used to be about.
In Ron's words... the party has lost it's way.
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 01:37 PM
Straw polls after a debate are just that ... grasping at straws. Put your energy behind a candidate that's electable.
Unless they show Ron Paul at 1%.
Then they are evidence.
We are talking about the real republican party.
You are talking about neocon republicrats.
What Ron Paul stands for is what being a Republican used to be about.
In Ron's words... the party has lost it's way.
Okay ... you're the classical conservatives [w/ all that entails].. you win ... now go start that "fringe" thread ....
bishopnl
06-06-2007, 01:39 PM
Well, first of all, I dispute your "koolaid drinkers" comment...that's just another term designed to dismiss substative arguments rather than just addressing them.
I think I stated somewhere that its possible I could vote for someone like Fred Thompson...although I'm extremely wary of his views concerning military intervention in the Middle East--he at least does appear to be much more conservative than several other Republican candidates.
I do like Ron Paul, and I feel he's the most conservative candidate out there. But I also agree with you that its unlikely that Ron Paul or others like him will be elected anytime in the near future. I don't attribute this to his being a "nut case" or an "isolationist" but rather to the overall unwillingness or ignorance of many voters to educate themselves on issues like military intervention. Unfortunately too many people just parrot what they hear someone else say without taking time to become properly informed on important issues.
As you say, no non-interventionist will likely be elected in the near future. And American foreign policy will continue to suffer.
Well, first of all, I dispute your "koolaid drinkers" comment...that's just another term designed to dismiss substative arguments rather than just addressing them.
I think I stated somewhere that its possible I could vote for someone like Fred Thompson...although I'm extremely wary of his views concerning military intervention in the Middle East--he at least does appear to be much more conservative than several other Republican candidates.
I do like Ron Paul, and I feel he's the most conservative candidate out there. But I also agree with you that its unlikely that Ron Paul or others like him will be elected anytime in the near future. I don't attribute this to his being a "nut case" or an "isolationist" but rather to the overall unwillingness or ignorance of many voters to educate themselves on issues like military intervention. Unfortunately too many people just parrot what they hear someone else say without taking time to become properly informed on important issues.
As you say, no non-interventionist will likely be elected in the near future. And American foreign policy will continue to suffer.
Happy to see that we agree ... now who is electable that might represent the bulk of conservatives???? Thompson seems to be that man ...I think.
We are talking about the real republican party.
You are talking about neocon republicrats.
What Ron Paul stands for is what being a Republican used to be about.
In Ron's words... the party has lost it's way.
Fine. do what DA said and go start a "real republican" thread and leave us no good republicrats to our own devises.
THIS WAS A THREAD ABOUT FRED THOMPSON AT ONE POINT.
bishopnl
06-06-2007, 01:44 PM
lets play "lets make a deal"
D4T, the bishiop and chan can go make a thread and talk about politics and say what every you want, and i will stay away, and you guys will not drag the discussion about the real Republican party into the a side ditch.
how is that?
That's the American spirit.
Everyone who makes an argument I might actually have to defend myself against should be banned from the discussion.
Have you ever actually sat down and researched American foreign policy in the Middle East?
bishopnl
06-06-2007, 01:54 PM
Happy to see that we agree ... now who is electable that might represent the bulk of conservatives????
That's just it.
If Guliani, McCain, or Romney are the candidate, I'll probably vote for Paul anyway. ;)
Because in my opinion, they all deviate in massive ways from anything having to do with conservatism.
Perhaps I would vote for Fred Thompson...I disagree with his views on foreign policy, but he's fiscally and constitutionally in many other ways a very solid conservative. And unfortunately, most conservatives are on board with the lame brained idea that we need to bomb the Middle East into submission and set up military bases in every country on earth, so I'm not sure that's a point I can afford to be choosy on.
That's the American spirit.
Everyone who makes an argument I might actually have to defend myself against should be banned from the discussion.
Have you ever actually sat down and researched American foreign policy in the Middle East?
No sir, it is just that every single time some of us try to have a discussion about the nomination of the next republican candidate for the presidency, Chan and D4T come along and run us off into a ditch. this isnt a first go round on this.
last time we had a discussion about the declaration of was and the constitution and all anyone really wanted to disuss was Thompson/Rudy/Mitt.
sorry bro, I am not being unwilling to talk. it is just for once, I would like to have a rational discussion that remains on topic here.
I guess that is too much to ask.
bishopnl
06-06-2007, 02:19 PM
No sir, it is just that every single time some of us try to have a discussion about the nomination of the next republican candidate for the presidency,
Am I incorrect, or is Ron Paul not a Republican nominee for President? Just because some people don't consider him a serious one doesn't make him any less of a nominee. Personally, I think McCain's support of the immigration bill probably eliminates him from any serious talk of the nomination, but I don't think he should be excluded just because I don't think he's electable.
Who's stopping you from talking about Thompson, Rudy, and Mitt?
I've referenced my feelings on Thompson a couple times in this thread....I didn't feel like I was being pressured to talk about any particular candidate.
Steve Epley
06-06-2007, 02:43 PM
Outside of Texas if you asked 100 people about Ron Paul probably 95 have never heard of him.
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 02:51 PM
Outside of Texas if you asked 100 people about Ron Paul probably 95 have never heard of him.
Wrong...
Ron Paul has been measured as the top internet search term and has been verified that it isn't bot activity that is doing it.
Ron Paul received 54% of the vote for who won the debates last night on CNN's very own website.
Ron Paul is also way ahead of all of the other Republican candidates on youtube, myspace, wikicharts etc.
The mainstream media pretty much refuses to acknowledge that this guy exists but yet his popularity continues to skyrocket.
Of course... if history is any indicator...none of this nor any other information I could give you will cause you to re-think your position.
Also... I have asked you twice what stands that Ron Paul has taken on issues make you call him insane & wacko... but you refuse to answer the question.
bishopnl
06-06-2007, 02:57 PM
Outside of Texas if you asked 100 people about Ron Paul probably 95 have never heard of him.
You could probably use similar numbers when it comes to Jesus name baptism. Does that make us all nutcases?
Chan ... Isolationism died a century ago ... keep up.Abandoning the foreign policy of the founding fathers has proved to be hurtful to America. We were the envy of the world before we started butting into the internal affairs of other nations.
But, if you want an America that tries to impose its will on other nations, don't complain when those nations or groups within those nations decide to retaliate (as they did on 9/11).
Perot, Forbes, and like ilk ... led in polls ... many times ... People like the message but will not vote for the messenger ...They won't vote for the messenger because they're stupid sheep who keep believing the media and pundits who keep telling them these such men don't have a chance of winning.
A candidate has as much chance of winning as the voters give him!
Am I incorrect, or is Ron Paul not a Republican nominee for President? Just because some people don't consider him a serious one doesn't make him any less of a nominee. Personally, I think McCain's support of the immigration bill probably eliminates him from any serious talk of the nomination, but I don't think he should be excluded just because I don't think he's electable.
Who's stopping you from talking about Thompson, Rudy, and Mitt?
I've referenced my feelings on Thompson a couple times in this thread....I didn't feel like I was being pressured to talk about any particular candidate.
BNL, it is one thing to talk about Ron Paul. it is entirely another to claim that the rest of us have discarded the constitution when we dont support ron paul...
see?
your comments have been very much in keeping with the thread. however others want to talk about sheeple and the unconstitutional refusal to declare war and all kinds of other rabit trails that keep everyone else off topic.
peace to you my friend.
Well, first of all, I dispute your "koolaid drinkers" comment...that's just another term designed to dismiss substative arguments rather than just addressing them.
I think I stated somewhere that its possible I could vote for someone like Fred Thompson...although I'm extremely wary of his views concerning military intervention in the Middle East--he at least does appear to be much more conservative than several other Republican candidates.
I do like Ron Paul, and I feel he's the most conservative candidate out there. But I also agree with you that its unlikely that Ron Paul or others like him will be elected anytime in the near future. I don't attribute this to his being a "nut case" or an "isolationist" but rather to the overall unwillingness or ignorance of many voters to educate themselves on issues like military intervention. Unfortunately too many people just parrot what they hear someone else say without taking time to become properly informed on important issues.
As you say, no non-interventionist will likely be elected in the near future. And American foreign policy will continue to suffer.Or their unwillingness to educate themselves on the Constitution.
They won't vote for the messenger because they're stupid sheep who keep believing the media and pundits who keep telling them these such men don't have a chance of winning.
A candidate has as much chance of winning as the voters give him!
in addition to being sheeple, I am now stupid.
is this where I retort with name calling back at you or do I turn the other cheek?
Thank you sir, may I have another?
Wrong...
Ron Paul has been measured as the top internet search term and has been verified that it isn't bot activity that is doing it.
Ron Paul received 54% of the vote for who won the debates last night on CNN's very own website.
Ron Paul is also way ahead of all of the other Republican candidates on youtube, myspace, wikicharts etc.
The mainstream media pretty much refuses to acknowledge that this guy exists but yet his popularity continues to skyrocket.
Of course... if history is any indicator...none of this nor any other information I could give you will cause you to re-think your position.
Also... I have asked you twice what stands that Ron Paul has taken on issues make you call him insane & wacko... but you refuse to answer the question.
I tell you what. if Ron Paul wins the republican nomination I will vote for him.
are you happy?
BNL, it is one thing to talk about Ron Paul. it is entirely another to claim that the rest of us have discarded the constitution when we dont support ron paul...
see? We don't say you've discarded the Constitution because you don't support Ron Paul, we say it because you support policies that are, in fact, unconstitutional.
your comments have been very much in keeping with the thread. however others want to talk about sheeple and the unconstitutional refusal to declare war and all kinds of other rabit trails that keep everyone else off topic.
peace to you my friend.Translation: we're just going to stick our fingers in our ears because we don't want to hear anything that challenges the status quo."
You could probably use similar numbers when it comes to Jesus name baptism. Does that make us all nutcases?
Jesus couldnt win an election in the USA either....without devine intervention.
Translation: we're just going to stick our fingers in our ears because we don't want to hear anything that challenges the status quo."
I wasnt talking to you chan.
in addition to being sheeple, I am now stupid. Most American voters are. Why? Because you just parrot what the media and pundits tell you to believe.
Abandoning the foreign policy of the founding fathers has proved to be hurtful to America. We were the envy of the world before we started butting into the internal affairs of other nations.
But, if you want an America that tries to impose its will on other nations, don't complain when those nations or groups within those nations decide to retaliate (as they did on 9/11).
We were a backward agrarian society who had just beaten the British Empire... scared out of our minds to provoke any further imperialist actions ...
We did not get involved in any foreign" entanglements" more out of necessity ... as babes we were still growing economically and geographically ...
but usher in the modern age ... things invariably changed.
now as industrialized nation and leader of the free world ... we have responsibilities .... it's reality, my Paulites ... our role has changed ..... like it or not.
had we not intervened in WWI, WWII and in the Cold War who knows we're we'd be ....
bishopnl, see, we are back to "the constitution says" debate....clearly this is what i meant when i told chan to go set up his own thread.
Most American voters are. Why? Because you just parrot what the media and pundits tell you to believe.
just want to get this straight.
you have personally called me a stupid sheeple.
thanks.
We were a backward agrarian society who had just beaten the British Empire... scared out of our minds to provoke any further imperialist actions ...
We not get involved in any foreign" entanglements" more out of necessity ... as babes we were still growing economically and geographically ...
but usher in the modern age ... things invariably changed.
now as industrialized nation and leader of the free world ... we have responsibilities .... it's reality, my Paulites ... our role has changed ..... like it or not.
had we not intervened in WWI, WWII and in the Cold War who knows we're we'd be ....
...sitting on the other side of the ocean, needing many resources and products from Europe and having a birds eye view of hundreds of years of struggle for a balance of power in Europe.... the founders were right at the time. I suspect that GW, TJ, BF and arguably the greatest Amercian of all James Madison would have a different view today.
deacon blues
06-06-2007, 03:59 PM
What about the polls from last night?
Are you talking about the CNN poll? A lot of liberal watch CNN. I'm sure they LOVED Ru Paul!
Are you talking about the CNN poll? A lot of liberal watch CNN. I'm sure they LOVED Ru Paul!
LOL! RU PAUL!
now that there is FUNNY. i dont care who you are! that there is REAL FUNNY.
deacon blues
06-06-2007, 04:06 PM
This is nuts!
Our foreign policy in the Mid East has been pro Israel and that has put us at odds with the islamic/Arab nations. That is the Biblical foreign policy that God approves: "I will bless them that bless you".
These kooks have been terrorists since the inception of Islam that has a long bloody history. They want to DESTROY WESTERN CIVILIZATION! That includes YOU and YOUR WIVES and YOUR KIDS! America didn't create these nutjobs, the Koran did!
Are you aware that the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers was 200+ years ago and there weren't evil forces of terror attacking our nation and killing innocent civilians? DO you realize that isolationism was the policy of the US pre-WWII? Do you realize that our reluctance to enter into that war only emboldend the forces of evil intent on spreading totalitarianism across the globe and enslaving multiplied millions around the world?
And in 1994, what got the GOP elected was the "Contract with America" and that had nothing to do with this present day struggle against radical Islamic jihadists? HELLO? We are living in a whole NEW world! 9/11 changed all of that. We can never go back to isolationism!
This is nuts!
Our foreign policy in the Mid East has been pro Israel and that has put us at odds with the islamic/Arab nations. That is the Biblical foreign policy that God approves: "I will bless them that bless you".
These kooks have been terrorists since the inception of Islam that has a long bloody history. They want to DESTROY WESTERN CIVILIZATION! That includes YOU and YOUR WIVES and YOUR KIDS! America didn't create these nutjobs, the Koran did!
Are you aware that the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers was 200+ years ago and there weren't evil forces of terror attacking our nation and killing innocent civilians? DO you realize that isolationism was the policy of the US pre-WWII? Do you realize that our reluctance to enter into that war only emboldend the forces of evil intent on spreading totalitarianism across the globe and enslaving multiplied millions around the world?
And in 1994, what got the GOP elected was the "Contract with America" and that had nothing to do with this present day struggle against radical Islamic jihadists? HELLO? We are living in a whole NEW world! 9/11 changed all of that. We can never go back to isolationism!
On point ... DB you are on fire,today. ..... POTD ... tied w/ several others you've posted.
deacon blues
06-06-2007, 04:15 PM
What frightens me is that people who could vote for an electable candidate that gets it right on the war on terror, will vote for a guy like Ron Paul, or sit it out in the general election and we'll end up with Hillary as Commander-in-Chief (her husband is about 90% responsible for 9/11) or Barak Hussein Obama (tell me he'll be pro-Israel) or John "the War on Terror is a Bumper Sticker Slogan" Edwards.
The UN will become the leader of the world and America will slide completely into the pit as we expand abortion, gay rights, gay marriage, open borders, legaized drugs, socialized medicine, infringements on religious freedoms, etc.
berkeley
06-06-2007, 04:18 PM
What frightens me is that people who could vote for an electable candidate that gets it right on the war on terror, will vote for a guy like Ron Paul, or sit it out in the general election and we'll end up with Hillary as Commander-in-Chief (her husband is about 90% responsible for 9/11) or Barak Hussein Obama (tell me he'll be pro-Israel) or John "the War on Terror is a Bumper Sticker Slogan" Edwards.
The UN will become the leader of the world and America will slide completely into the pit as we expand abortion, gay rights, gay marriage, open borders, legaized drugs, socialized medicine, infringements on religious freedoms, etc.
like Europe...
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 04:21 PM
I tell you what. if Ron Paul wins the republican nomination I will vote for him.
are you happy?
Extremely...
And that is an honest answer...
Extremely...
And that is an honest answer...
of course it is an honest answer. you think i would lay out and let a dem get in? that is as nuts as Ron Paul! (that was a funny)
but seriously, I will vote for the republican nominee.
BNL, it is one thing to talk about Ron Paul. it is entirely another to claim that the rest of us have discarded the constitution when we dont support ron paul...
see?
your comments have been very much in keeping with the thread. however others want to talk about sheeple and the unconstitutional refusal to declare war and all kinds of other rabit trails that keep everyone else off topic.
peace to you my friend.
Ferd, you are right. Every time a thread on the next election gets started it gets overtaken by the RP crowd.
We were a backward agrarian society who had just beaten the British Empire... scared out of our minds to provoke any further imperialist actions ...
We did not get involved in any foreign" entanglements" more out of necessity ... as babes we were still growing economically and geographically ...
but usher in the modern age ... things invariably changed.
now as industrialized nation and leader of the free world ... we have responsibilities .... it's reality, my Paulites ... our role has changed ..... like it or not.
had we not intervened in WWI, WWII and in the Cold War who knows we're we'd be ....
This reminds me of the ucs when they demand that we need to keep with the supposed "old paths" from 50 years ago.
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 05:17 PM
of course it is an honest answer. you think i would lay out and let a dem get in? that is as nuts as Ron Paul! (that was a funny)
but seriously, I will vote for the republican nominee.
Sorry... you misunderstood.
I said... Extremely...
And then added... should you think I was being sarcastic or smart alec...
"And that is an honest answer"
I didn't question whether your post was an honest answer.
I was ensuring you my post was an honest answer.
StillStanding
06-06-2007, 05:39 PM
You may or may not know this, but Fred Thompson is 6'7" tall!!! He's a big dude! :)
Steve Epley
06-06-2007, 05:45 PM
You may or may not know this, but Fred Thompson is 6'7" tall!!! He's a big dude! :)
Someone I can look up to.:search
Brett Prince
06-06-2007, 06:10 PM
'Bout like Zacheus looking up at the tree he was about to climb! :D
berkeley
06-06-2007, 06:12 PM
Someone I can look up to.:search
You look up to everyone:::::::
bishopnl
06-06-2007, 06:29 PM
We were a backward agrarian society who had just beaten the British Empire... scared out of our minds to provoke any further imperialist actions ...
We did not get involved in any foreign" entanglements" more out of necessity ... as babes we were still growing economically and geographically ...
but usher in the modern age ... things invariably changed.
now as industrialized nation and leader of the free world ... we have responsibilities .... it's reality, my Paulites ... our role has changed ..... like it or not.
had we not intervened in WWI, WWII and in the Cold War who knows we're we'd be ....
It's possible that had we not intervened in WWI, European powers would have fought themselves to a standstill, and the ensuing treaty that was negotiated would have been much more favorable to Germany than the Treaty of Versailles, thus limiting Hitler's appeal...and who knows?
But using this kind of argument, I suppose we can also surmise that the Constitution is a "living" document...and the founding Fathers really expected it to be interpreted differently depending on the age we were living in and the role that we hold in the world. After all, as the leader of the free world, the fact is that most countries have rejected the death penalty, and have legalized gay marriage. We can't stay behind on these issues....got to keep up our standing and lead the way. We've got a living Constitution, after all, and it needs to bend with the times. Times have changed, like it or not...
And oh yeah, since many countries are instituting nationalized health care and drug legalization, we need to lead the way on these issues as well. After all, if Canada can have national health care, why shouldn't we?
Or it could be that Madison, Washington, etc. were just smarter than the current crop of politicians today, and had seen what empire building could do to a country.
To get back on the subject of Fred Thompson, lest I be accused of being a whacko nutcase who likes to refer to the Constitution to much ;), I did read his comments on federalism. They were excellent....
And oh yeah, I've seen him in Law and Order...he's not a bad actor, too. Will that make him a better liar? ;) just kidding.
And there we have it...
The ever present black helicopter comment.
He had 54% of the vote on the CNN Who Won the debate poll...
But... not viable.
And... of course... when the others beat Ron Paul... it is proof Ron Paul is not viable...
But when Ron Paul wins it only means that there has been some manipulation of some kind.
Talk about conspiracy theorists!!!!!!!!!
How many times do we have to go over the fact that voluntary online polls do not represent reality at all. Even when they come out in my favor.
Any proponent of any particular canidate or question asked in one of those polls can organize their folks to all take the poll and tilt the results.
I challenge you here and now to show me a legitimate poll, not a voluntary online one, that shows Ron Paul won that debate or any other of the debates. You know it is not true.
The fact that you are deluding yourself thinking 54% of people thought Ron Paul was great and won that debate clearly places you in the black helicopter crowd and one who struggles with reality.
When this came up before I posted poll after poll taken by legitimate polling firms that showed the standing of each of the Republican canidates and Ron Paul was at 1-2% in every single one.
Digging4Truth
06-06-2007, 09:01 PM
No sir, it is just that every single time some of us try to have a discussion about the nomination of the next republican candidate for the presidency, Chan and D4T come along and run us off into a ditch. this isnt a first go round on this.
Threads started...
Could you Vote for Mayor Giulioni ? Started by Thad
Started on Guliani and did evolve around to Ron Paul. You are correct on this thread.
Ron Paul is running!!! Started by Eliseus
It was pro Ron Paul thread but you guys came in busting our chops for how ignorant our choice of candidate was.
Ron Paul exposes "neoconservativism" Started by Eliseus
No one ever posted but the author.
This Man Could Be Our Next President Started by Pianoman
On Fred Thompson... one casual mention of Ron Paul by Pressing On
Ron Paul's YouTube Channel Started by Digging4Truth
You guys left us alone and didn't bust our chops.
Tommy Thompson for President! Started by HeavenlyOne
The only mention of Ron Paul was in an article posted by Pressing On
Ron Paul live, right now~~~!!!! Started by Eliseus
CC1 informed us "Ron Paul is an idiot"
CC1s official Ron Paul Is An Idiot thread Started by Eliseus so CC1 could explain why he thinks Ron Paul is an idiot.
Ferd chimed in informing that, while he isn't sure RP is an idiot he knows he isn't going to be elected president.
Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban! Started by CC1
Ferd made it a Fred Thompson thread for a while and Ron Paul is mentioned one time in a reply to Epley informing him that Ron Paul is indeed running as a Republican.
Does Your Faith Match Your Politics? Started by chaotic_resolve
One mention of Ron Paul by the author of the thread.
Ron Paul on Bill Maher's show Started by ReformedDave
Pro Ron Paul... y'all left us alone and didn't bust our chops.
Okay... I'm quitting here... I'm not going to spend my whole evening putting facts to a comment you pulled out of thin air.
You need to check and see who it is that always shows up at whose discussions running them off into a ditch.
just want to get this straight.
you have personally called me a stupid sheeple.
thanks."You" plural. I wasn't referring to you exclusively, I was referring to the vast majority of American voters (and people eligible to vote but don't vote).
We were a backward agrarian society who had just beaten the British Empire... scared out of our minds to provoke any further imperialist actions ...
We did not get involved in any foreign" entanglements" more out of necessity ... as babes we were still growing economically and geographically ...
but usher in the modern age ... things invariably changed.
now as industrialized nation and leader of the free world ... we have responsibilities .... it's reality, my Paulites ... our role has changed ..... like it or not.
had we not intervened in WWI, WWII and in the Cold War who knows we're we'd be ....None of what you have posted is relevant and it's still a better foreign policy not to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.
This is nuts!
Our foreign policy in the Mid East has been pro Israel and that has put us at odds with the islamic/Arab nations. That is the Biblical foreign policy that God approves: "I will bless them that bless you".But America's support for Israel isn't what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is America's interfering in the internal affairs of Arab nations (e.g. putting the Shah of Iran into power in the 1950s, supplying Saddam Hussein with WMDs and other weapons when he was fighting Iran as well as having a role in his initially coming to power in Iraq).
These kooks have been terrorists since the inception of Islam that has a long bloody history. They want to DESTROY WESTERN CIVILIZATION! That includes YOU and YOUR WIVES and YOUR KIDS! America didn't create these nutjobs, the Koran did!The interesting thing is, though, that when the Muslims controlled parts of Europe prior to the Middle Ages, they actually helped advance Western Civilization by preserving many of the ancient Greek writings, by their scholarship in math, astronomy and other sciences, and by a policy of tolerance toward Christians and Jews.
Are you aware that the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers was 200+ years ago and there weren't evil forces of terror attacking our nation and killing innocent civilians? DO you realize that isolationism was the policy of the US pre-WWII? Do you realize that our reluctance to enter into that war only emboldend the forces of evil intent on spreading totalitarianism across the globe and enslaving multiplied millions around the world?So what? Let's realize that the founding fathers were right and that the non-interventionist policy was right. By the way, we weren't isolationist: we did engage in huge amounts of trade with other countries. The evil forces that attacked our nation on 9/11 did so exactly because we interfered in their internal national affairs over the years since the 1950s.
And in 1994, what got the GOP elected was the "Contract with America" and that had nothing to do with this present day struggle against radical Islamic jihadists? HELLO? We are living in a whole NEW world! 9/11 changed all of that. We can never go back to isolationism!What part of AMERICAN POLICIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST LED TO THE TERRORIST RETALIATION ON 9/11 did you not understand?
What frightens me is that people who could vote for an electable candidate that gets it right on the war on terror, will vote for a guy like Ron Paul, or sit it out in the general election and we'll end up with Hillary as Commander-in-Chief (her husband is about 90% responsible for 9/11) or Barak Hussein Obama (tell me he'll be pro-Israel) or John "the War on Terror is a Bumper Sticker Slogan" Edwards.
The UN will become the leader of the world and America will slide completely into the pit as we expand abortion, gay rights, gay marriage, open borders, legaized drugs, socialized medicine, infringements on religious freedoms, etc.Ron Paul has it right on the so-called "war on terror." As for the UN becoming the leader of the world and America falling into something or other (obsolescence, perhaps), I believe that this is going to be necessary if end times Bible prophecy is going to come to pass. Of course, you and others would like to fight Bible prophecy (and, thereby, fight against God) with your idolatrous support for American imperialism.
Pressing-On
07-06-2007, 10:02 AM
Fred Thompson: More than a week prior to his scheduled (and postponed) announcement, former Sen. Fred Thompson's organization was already in contact with the Republican National Committee (RNC) about setting in motion the process to sign documents for a data exchange of the RNC's massive voter database. The RNC decided to share its massive voter databases with all Republican primary candidates, with the understanding that the losing candidates will in turn send back all of the updated data they collect after their campaigns are over.
1. That Thompson's staff was even aware of this program, Republican insiders note, is impressive, as is the fact that they were moving so fast to exploit it in mid-June.
2. Far more troubling are the fears among Republicans that there is less to Thompson than meets the eye. He could still seize the nomination and prove a disappointing candidate in the general election. In appearances across the country, from New Hampshire to South Carolina, his speeches have ranged from "pretty decent" to "quite underwhelming." He has not yet had the knock-out performance he will need in order to prove that he is worthy of frontrunner status.
Evans-Novak Political Report for 7/5
ManOfWord
07-06-2007, 10:27 AM
I don't think Fred needs a "knock-out" punch. All he really has to do is be himself and not portray the persona of a belt-way politician.
I think he could be the leader to make the moral choices we need. I'm not convinced that he is, but he might be. We'll just have to wait and see.
Pressing-On
07-06-2007, 10:29 AM
I don't think Fred needs a "knock-out" punch. All he really has to do is be himself and not portray the persona of a belt-way politician.
I think he could be the leader to make the moral choices we need. I'm not convinced that he is, but he might be. We'll just have to wait and see.
I'm still waiting for the "ants in the woodwork" to come out on him. Something feels "unsaid" for me.
ManOfWord
07-06-2007, 10:38 AM
I'm still waiting for the "ants in the woodwork" to come out on him. Something feels "unsaid" for me.
That's why I am patiently waiting with others. :D
StillStanding
07-06-2007, 10:42 AM
I don't think Fred needs a "knock-out" punch. All he really has to do is be himself and not portray the persona of a belt-way politician.
I think he could be the leader to make the moral choices we need. I'm not convinced that he is, but he might be. We'll just have to wait and see.
I'm still waiting for the "ants in the woodwork" to come out on him. Something feels "unsaid" for me.
I'm confident that there are folks that are working full-time to dig out any dirt they can find on him! The biggest knock on him is that he was a lobbiest, and he has two sons that are current lobbiests.
He does need to work on his speech giving skills. He's a gifted man, and I'm sure that he will have speech coaches that will help.
He has a stable conservative record in congress. He is very good at responses to assertions of his faults. He will use the internet and youtube to his benefit during this election period.
Pressing-On
07-06-2007, 10:46 AM
I'm confident that there are folks that are working full-time to dig out any dirt they can find on him! The biggest knock on him is that he was a lobbiest, and he has two sons that are current lobbiests.
He does need to work on his speech giving skills. He's a gifted man, and I'm sure that he will have speech coaches that will help.
He has a stable conservative record in congress. He is very good at responses to assertions of his faults. He will use the internet and youtube to his benefit during this election period.
These qualities, here, will be his strongest points.
Guiliani is also very good at hitting the issues, head-on, concerning his faults. He just doesn't have the strong conservative record or reputation.
Fred Thompson: More than a week prior to his scheduled (and postponed) announcement, former Sen. Fred Thompson's organization was already in contact with the Republican National Committee (RNC) about setting in motion the process to sign documents for a data exchange of the RNC's massive voter database. The RNC decided to share its massive voter databases with all Republican primary candidates, with the understanding that the losing candidates will in turn send back all of the updated data they collect after their campaigns are over.
1. That Thompson's staff was even aware of this program, Republican insiders note, is impressive, as is the fact that they were moving so fast to exploit it in mid-June.
2. Far more troubling are the fears among Republicans that there is less to Thompson than meets the eye. He could still seize the nomination and prove a disappointing candidate in the general election. In appearances across the country, from New Hampshire to South Carolina, his speeches have ranged from "pretty decent" to "quite underwhelming." He has not yet had the knock-out performance he will need in order to prove that he is worthy of frontrunner status.
Evans-Novak Political Report for 7/5It's so typically shallow of the American sheeple to base the quality of a candidate on his ability to make speeches!
Pressing-On
07-06-2007, 10:56 AM
It's so typically shallow of the American sheeple to base the quality of a candidate on his ability to make speeches!
Chancellor,
You could have a point. I was watching Bill Clinton doing his "town meeting" stuff and I thought - What a fake! I didn't see why people couldn't see through him.
I even remember some friends watching Jimmy Swaggart on t.v. years ago. I simply said, "His tears are not real." Boy, did they come unglued on me. lol
It does stand to reason that a good oratory voice helps you out. It helps you in sales, teaching, preaching and sometimes in an argument. lol
Word are powerful. Combine that with a good speaking voice and well, there ya have it.
Pressing-On
07-07-2007, 08:43 AM
Too funny!!!!
Dropping into what will be the key state of South Carolina for his prospective presidential campaign, Fred Thompson was ambushed Wednesday by advocates of the "Fair Tax" plan to repeal the federal income tax and replace it with a national sales tax.
The former senator addressed a Republican state fund-raising luncheon in the state capital of Columbia. He appeared surprised to see more people wearing "Fair Tax" stickers than "Thompson for President" badges. He did not seem prepared to answer questions about the sweeping tax reform.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21354
Pressing-On
08-22-2007, 03:56 PM
If there was any doubt, it's gone now: Fred Thompson will announce his candidacy after Labor Day, with his coming out party his participation in the September 27 GOP debate in Maryland.
Evans-Novak Political Report for 8/22
On that debate he will be in or out.
Brett Prince
08-24-2007, 03:51 PM
P-O,
Your concerns with FT are mine. I think he could make a great president--but he has to get there--and unfortunately, shallow or not, candidates today had better make great speeches.
Pressing-On
08-24-2007, 03:57 PM
P-O,
Your concerns with FT are mine. I think he could make a great president--but he has to get there--and unfortunately, shallow or not, candidates today had better make great speeches.
I agree! I'm anxious to see how this plays out. Unfortunately, we will be at my FIL's house and Ohhhhhhh he loves to criticize the Republicans when I am there! I just sit in the corner, read the paper he saves me all week, and ignore him.
Fred Thompson is going to have to live up to the hype come September and he finally announces!!!
The good news is that he is very smart and has the right position on most issues and he can be a very good communicator.
The bad news is that he is notorious for not liking to spend long hours campaigning and when he strays from the text of a written speech he stumbles and bumbles a lot.
It also appears that his much younger (and very pretty) wife is a point of contention in the campaign. Numerous campaign personell have left over disagreeing with the influence and role Jeri is playing in the campaign.
I will be waiting with bated breath and fingers crossed that FT is as good a canidate as I have thought he will be.
I think probably only he or Rudy can beat Hillary and Rudy is far too liberal on too many issues.
deacon blues
08-27-2007, 08:54 PM
BUT CC, if Thompson stumbles through the primaries, if there is no real clear frontrunner, we've got to go with Rudy. He is the only one who can beat Hillary (I'm not convinced FT can---his waiting has got me a little perplexed, I hope it works for him---the Clinton political machine will eat him alive if he is inept---Rudy's a fighter and can go toe to toe with HC.)
I don't like Rudy on social issues, I don't like the baggage he carries, but we religious right voters are going to have to be willing to put abortion and other social issues on the backburner if it means Hillary will not be in office. One thing Rudy will do is conduct the War on Terrorism with the right vision.
The Clintons will be our ruin.
Kiss America goodbye, buddy, if Hillary is CIC of the Armed Forces (Dis-armed by the time she's done with them).
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.