Fred Thompson

Remove all ads!

Would someone who likes him mind explaining why they like him?

Because, well, I don't get it. Not even a little.

Actually, that's not totally true. I think I get it. But I'd like to be wrong.

 

Yeah, he should fit the bill pretty well for the "good Ole" boys down South. I'm not sure how well all this will play out with the rest of the country at large though. But the guy sounds more like a left-over GWB than he does Reagan. Of course they probably belonged to the same actor's union. Btw, nice links, AM. Thanks.

 

Wow, wasn't that (first) source an unbiased one... Apparently, some people like the credentials he has, or at least they presume he has.

 

I'm assuming that was sarcasm as they post on their own site

As to why I like Fred there are many reasons and I will link to his actual writings as opposed to the liberal slime machines

1. He understands taxes . He understands that taxes take money out of the hands of citizens and hurt the economy.

2. Immigration - He understands that a nation that can't secure its borders will not remain a nation for long. Why can other nations be selective on who they let immigrate, but we have to take all the garbage? (my quote not his).

3. Strong support for Israel enough said

4. He isn't ashamed of America and doesn't aspire to be anything else.

5. He is disgusted by the U.N.'s corruption

6. He understands what we are fighting for.

7. Probably the main thing I like about Fred is that he is a true conservative and not a RINO (Republican in name only).

8. His support for the second amendment

9. He is Pro-Life- O.K., this one I don't like, but nobody is perfect.

10. His wife is very easy on the eye and as a nation I think we could use that

11. I believe he can win the nomination and a general election. Their is a lot of passion for many of the fringe candidates (Ron Paul especially), but if you look at the numbers it should be obvious that they can't win either.

 

On Taxes:

Who's willing to place bets on the budget being in Surplas by 2010? Admittedly Maggie managed it in the 80's with very low taxes, but it was mostly down to a massive cut in spending on, not only Health Care, but Education and Infrastructure - which we're now paying the cost for.

 

Good, he can start by giving us back all the tax dollars that the Republicans have pissed away on the reconstruction of Iraq. He can also throw all the corporate lobbies and leeches out of Washington who have been sucking the American public dry with corporate welfare.

Sorry, I did not see anything in his long-wnded tirade, for the NR (yeah, there's an "unbiased" source also), on exactly HOW he was going to fix the problem. But I may have missed his solution amidst all the demagogaury.

Yeah, Thompson and about 500 other Congressmen share that. Looks as if your reasons are already getting pretty thin at this point...

Nothing like some good old fashion "flag-waving" to fire-up the base. THAT takes a lot of intelligence and imagination in a politician.

Corrpution? You really want to go there as a Republican? Well, they are probably the experts on corruption....

Oil, Halliburton, ect.

Supporting one amendment out of the original ten is probably easier...

I don't see anything in your list that makes him different than GWB (other than immigration). I guess that the status quo is what you are looking for.

 

I had a lot of reservations about responding to Amasters request for why someone would like Fred and want to vote for him for President. It was obvious from his post and the following post from Chandos that the entire purpose of this thread was to smear Fred as there is a very strong possibility he will win the nomination and could trounce the Democratic candidate. However, I took the bait and succombed to the trolling and now we see Chandos' response above.

To all of the reasonable people who read these boards, the above is my opinion and my opinion alone. I don't work for Fred nor do I plan to. Things and issues that I consider important may not be important at all to other people and that is just to bad for them. Someone's disagreement doesn't invalidate an opinion.

I personally feel that Fred is the best candidate that is running for the Republican nomination. I am under no obligation to justify or defend my opinion. I also happen to feel that Democrats running under a policy of defeatism (hence the internet term Defeatocrats) would be an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. and probably the world. For those of you who disagree with me, good for you.

When I first typed my response I knew in my heart of hearts this thread would turn bad. Sadly, I was right.

 

I believe that reasonable people can see a rational argument for why someone should or should not be president. But some arguments are not really rational but emotional, such as the above. People have different points of view, and as you point out, they don't really have to be defended by any particular means. But as you comment, let's be reasonable.

 

Snook: Yeah, you should have resisted the temptation. A post by a liberal that attacks a conservative -- wow, something new on these boards. And that Chandos would respond to you in that way ... what a surprise.

I still like McCain better, but Thompson is rapidly gaining on Obama in my book. I think the thing the Democrats hate most about Thompson is that he can win.

Edit: Chandos -- I'm hoping you don't take offense here (but I probably failed), most of your arguments on these boards are quite good but you can be predictable at times....

 

Snook,

I agree that you're entitled to your opinion, and I of course respect it. That doesn't mean that when you express it we aren't free to disagree with it, or even challenge certain assertions. Especially when you say things like this:

...which imply that you are more motivated by partisanship than by actual facts (my opinion). Stating that the Democrats want the US to lose in Iraq is evidence of either immense intellectual dishonesty or a person who forms far too much of his opinions from the rantings of bloggers and pundits rather than forming his own conclusions based on actual facts. Not a single Democrat wants the US "defeated," and you know it.

It's perfectly reasonable to question you on your stated opinion, especially when it's so laced with political bias. That's what we do here. Start a similar thread on Barack Obama and you'll get exactly the same thing from the other conservatives here. Liberals will state why they like him, conservatives will go line by line (if they feel it necessary) challenging those assertions, and the discussion will follow. If your assertions are too flimsy to defend reasonably, then it's on you to make stronger assertions.

This isn't your first day in the Alleys, Snook.

On topic: I don't feel strongly one way or another about Thompson yet. At the very least he's far more in tune with reality than either Giuliani or Romney - which is comforting, but it isn't saying much, I admit (they're both phenominally ignorant about the Middle East). He doesn't have much of a record to stand on, so I'm trying to judge him solely on his current platform and positions. So far, that sound too close to the current Bush platform for me to get too excited about a return to principled conservatism. But again - I'm reserving judgment for the time being. The election is still a long ways off.

I'm not as sure that he's such a strong candidate as some are. I don't doubt his conservative credentials, but at this point I'm inclined to think he's not nearly up to his hype. In fact, you know who his candidacy reminds me of? Howard Dean. And we all know how that candidacy turned out.

[ edit - spelling - dammit. ]

[ September 12, 2007, 16:47: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Since the likelihood of any party running a candidate who actually represents 50%+ of my views is slim-to-none, I'm going to vote against Fred Thompson simply because I'm sick to death of hearing southern accents in the white house.

Hey, it's as valid a criteria as any other for choosing one of these bozos, sad to say.

 

You're wasting your time, TGS.

 

DR: don't make such generalizations. Obama is my number two choice right now. I don't think I've ever said anything against him. Of course, if you don't consider me a conservative....

Rally: I love it. I read that and laughed.

 

You're right, T2 - not EVERY conservative would pile on Obama, and I didn't say they would. Just like not every liberal is going to pile on Thompson.

Dins - it's never a waste of time to stand up for what you believe in.

 

You're right. I framed my request poorly. I should not have used the links that I did. I certainly set the wrong tone for this thread, and, in retrospect, assuming it was an attempt at trolling was probably the only sensible conclusion you (or anyone?) could have came to.

For that I apologize.

I was, however, quite sincere in my question, as I am genuinely perplexed by Fred's appeal. I've no intention of attempting to convince you not to support him, though I may ask for some clarification after I've read your reasoning.

Not now, however, as I've got to run.

EDIT: okay, TGS. Questions!

5: Are you equally concerned with corruption here at home? Perhaps more to the point, do you feel that Fred is equally concerned with corruption here at home?

7: Could you elaborate on what you mean by RINO? I keep seeing that label applied to certain people, but I'm not too clear on what it actually means.

And, actually, that's all I want clarification on. Thanks.

@T2, well, actually, I don't have a problem with conservatives. I think they're wrong on, um, most issues, but I could live with conservatives in power (though I would have some real difficulties with their foreign policy, if Goldwater and crew are anything to go by). My problem is that I don't consider the Republican Party to be conservative. Not at the moment, anyway, and it certainly appears to me that most of the '08 candidates are RWA rather than conservatives.

And while I respect conservatives, I view RWA as deserving nothing more--or less--than ridicule.

[ September 13, 2007, 01:06: Message edited by: AMaster ]

 

@Rallymama: LOL! Good one, ma'am.

Apart from that, I must admit I don't feel very strongly for or against him. I disagree with most of his positions, but then again, I don't remember being particularly enamored with any US president in my time (Bush Sr. and Clinton included). What amuses me somewhat is that despite the supposed right-wing cliche that democrats are artificial and elitist and republicans being down-to-earth and rational, here is a popular Republican candidate who is, of all things, an actor. Stranger things have happened in politics, bu I can't help but think it rather ironic.

 

@Amaster

5: The more local the corruption is the fewer people who can get hurt. That may seem like a terrible philosophy, but I am of the opinion that corruption will always exist and isn't the sole property of any party. From what I have read of Fred he seems to be a man of integrity. One of the things I like about him, is that I'm convinced he isn't really sure he wants to be President. I worry about people who consider it their manifest destiny.

7. RINO stands for "Republican in name only". That means they have joined the Republican party, but don't really represent the values of the party. NY Republicans like Bloomberg and Guiliani are the classic cases. They chose to be Republicans so they wouldn't have to run in the early elections with all of the other liberal Democrats. However, they tend to barely be conservative. They may be more conservative than Ted Kennedy, but they tend to be closer to Kennedy than to Reagan.

 

7: Could you expand on what you mean a bit more? Pretty please? Sugar on top?

Too much social liberalism? Not enough economic conservatism? Something else? All of the above?

 

Strict adherence to each and every aspect of the party line is not a requirement for party membership, contrary to what you may think. If you think Giuliani or Bloomberg don't fit as republicans, you obviously have never looked at the democrats. These guys (especially Giuliani) much more closely fit, ideologically speaking, with the republican party than they do with the democrats, therefore, they are republicans....and not just in name only.

[ September 13, 2007, 02:27: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Let's just take one example of the manifold reasons that TGS cites as an important issue - What may surprise many conservatives here is that I am with them on the immigration issue (I'm just going to take this one as an example.) This is a problem that needs a real solution. And I hope that no one, including my more liberal colleagues, will be offended by how strongly I feel about this:

Illegal immigrates are part of a sub-culture which is criminal. Our laws help make us who we are; they define us in many ways. Now, we have an illegal sub-culture which has complete disrespect for our Rule of Law. How can they become citizens of our country if they refuse to take the laws of our land in a serious manner? The answer is obvious; they don't intend to become real citizens.

In order to maintain their illegal presence they must drive on our streets without any licenses; which means that they are uninsured. They pay no taxes, but use our services, which is, in a word, fraud, and is also illegal. Most real Americans would be on probation for breaking our laws; at worst they would go to prison. In the case of illegal aliens, they are deported, which means they go home and begin the process again. So much for the Rule of Law. Because they are illegal, almost every "official" interaction they have with us and our government is in word, illegal.

Here's what I believe is a rational solution: Curtail the so called "War on Drugs;" divert all the police, judges, lawyers and prison space which is being used for non-violent offenders of usage, and use it to place illegals under the same obligations as real Americans. And the same pentalties. I know it sounds "reactionary," but if the Rule of Law does not apply to all within our borders, then, as some have pointed out, we have no national sovereignty of which to speak (I told you I would surprise you).

IMO, the threat of "hard" prison time will make for long lines at the Work Visas and Nationalization Services Building. But isn't that what we want? Real, LEGAL access for people who wish to live and work here? And those penalties should be passed on to those who hire illegals knowingly as well. Will it ever happen? No, it will not. No, they want to build a wall instead, and they will pobably use illegal workers to construct it. Does that mean that the Democrats and Republicans are the "spawn of Satan?" No, not really. We can agree to disagree, but please have another solution to counter with, a real solution, rather than: "If you don't agree with us then you must be a "sissy" or a "faggot." And you obviously don't "love your conutry" if you won't go along with the rest of us. That's really not very helpful; that's really not going to solve any problems...but then, is that "rhetoric" really intended to?