applesanity
New member
The same thing was said in 2004, 2000, etc.
Anyone else out there also think Fred Thompson would be a good President?
- Thread starter daddySEAL
- Start date
The same thing was said in 2004, 2000, etc.
Hey fella's I did not just fall off the Turnip Truck. I'm 67 and work the elections. With congress being so divided and unable to get the required votes for passage of a major bill, your going to need a strong person in the whitehouse. He COULD be that man. All I am saying is think about it.
If your concerns are legislation then look to your Senators and Congressman. The President can get Congressional members of his party to get a bill going and 'bully pulpit' but if your legislators are put between going with the president and getting re-elected they will go for re-election every time.
Which is it? Do you want an all powerful President that can get through any law you like or do you want the limited power and accountability President.
Let's get realistic. Ignoring midterm elections is freaking common and those are the guys that have the job of getting you represented. Midterm and General election CONGRESSIONAL races make a Congress. Don't ignore these elections then complain about the President not making a law, or repealing a law. Veto is his power in legislation. He can't get YOUR Congressman re-elected and that's what they REALLY care about regardless of whether the president is in the same party as them or not.
With that said, what law or spending/taxing change do you expect Thompson will make?
Which is it? Do you want an all powerful President that can get through any law you like or do you want the limited power and accountability President.
Let's get realistic. Ignoring midterm elections is freaking common and those are the guys that have the job of getting you represented. Midterm and General election CONGRESSIONAL races make a Congress. Don't ignore these elections then complain about the President not making a law, or repealing a law. Veto is his power in legislation. He can't get YOUR Congressman re-elected and that's what they REALLY care about regardless of whether the president is in the same party as them or not.
With that said, what law or spending/taxing change do you expect Thompson will make?
Of course. It's important to hold them to the same standard we hold the President.
The latter, of course. I also want a Congress with limited power and accountability. But we can't pretend the POTUS doesn't have a very powerful influence over the direction our country takes. You don't want a leader that tries to grab more and more power.
I think the word I'm looking for is "duh". Correct me if I'm wrong but the title of this thread referred to the President. I have my grievances with our legislative branch, too. But I'm sharing my opinion on the what has been known for a long time as "the leader of the free world". I think that's a position that demands some scrutiny.
I would expect him to spend more money we don't have on a flaky war. I would expect him to support ideas that limit free speech and assaults on privacy. I would expect him to support things that put more religion into government. I would expect him to support policies that place laws regarding the way people treat their own bodies. I would expect him to support policies that treat portions of the population as second-class citizens.
The point I was making in response to the original comment regarding a president that could get things done. I think it's more important to focus on what he would get done than how well he could do it.
The comments regarding education didn't inspire confidence.
I'm describing my opinion of Fred Thompson as suggested by the question in the title of the thread. It's not intended to bait. If you disagree with me so be it but this is the opinion I have formed of the man from what I've read, heard and seen. The only things has going for him are a possible strong immigration policy and the ability to string a sentence together in front of a camera.
Ahh. I didn't read that. Got links to Fred being for limiting free speech and privacy, a religious government, against self determination, and segregation of citizens.
Or are these extrapolations of your view on various issues hyperbolized and then projected on a candidate to anger supporters?
My view is that it is the latter and therefore incendiary baiting. Your attempting to provoke anger by casting intellectually dishonest characterizations.
Honest disagreement and debate this is not.
Or are these extrapolations of your view on various issues hyperbolized and then projected on a candidate to anger supporters?
My view is that it is the latter and therefore incendiary baiting. Your attempting to provoke anger by casting intellectually dishonest characterizations.
Honest disagreement and debate this is not.
Is OTI considered a reliable source? Never know sometimes..
http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Just a few. I'll be happy to elaborate more or find more examples if you'd like but it's close to midnight so it can be my Friday project since work has been slow lately.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Just a few. I'll be happy to elaborate more or find more examples if you'd like but it's close to midnight so it can be my Friday project since work has been slow lately.
Unregistered
Moderator
Campaign Finance Reform certainly limited free speech, in fact, it limited the most important kind of free speech: political speech.
Also, parts of the Patriot Act certainly infringe on privacy rights. When you buy a house, you now have to tell the federal government, and when large sums of money are moved around, the feds are notified as well.
These are great. These are the conservative values that have Fred leading the GOP race by 8 points.
You cast him as evil before and used examples that cast him as a conservative. This shows your actually ARE using extrapolations of your view on various issues hyperbolized and then projected on a candidate to misrepresent.
You clearly don't agree with these values and that's your right. But to cast Fred as being for limiting free speech and privacy, a religious government, against self determination, and for the segregation of citizens based on his conservative principles in frankly just more of the tactic of character assassination verses having a position that you promote as a better alternative. A tactic that Democrat leadership is teaching by example daily.
And those are so-called "conservative" values - because prohibiting freedom of speech should never be considered a conservative issue by any conservative that gives a rat's ass about the concept of liberty - are ones I am strongly against. Which is why - as I've explained already - I mentioned it's more important to have a candidate that does what you want rather than a candidate that simply gets things done.
I'm sure Hillary would get things done, too. She'd get a lot of things done. Many of them are things a lot of us wouldn't like.
Please show me where I've cast him as evil.
And those are the positions he has shown by his record. I did not say they were evil, I said they were things I disagreed with.
Banning flag burning is limiting speech. Abortion is an issue that centers on self-determination and gay marriage is an issue that centers on a group of citizens being treated unequally.
It's not character assassination.
Again....that's YOUR view, NOT a fact.
I view abortion as the killing of a child because the mother finds it inconvenient to be pregnant. I find human cloning to be dangerous past the potential benefit, I find same sex marriage an oxymoron, I find flag burning a grotesque disrespect of the freedom that flag represents, drugs are obviously a corruption. If that isn't obvious then you either don't know the drug culture or your in it. I especially LIKE less international aid and using those funds to counter the drug culture.
I find most 'liberal' positions to be little more then attempting to make legitimate bad behavior rather then to address that bad behavior and correct it personally. This is a normal stage in refining one's self, to deny it is wrong and that it SHOULDN'T be wrong. Typically a person eventually sees the impact of that behavior effects more then just them and realizes why it's wrong and that it's not some spontaneous rule written without reason. At that point they either change their behavior or accept that they deserve the consequences.
The characterizations you made of Fred Thompson as being for limiting free speech and privacy, a religious government, against self determination, and for the segregation of citizens does cast a dishonest representation of his values. You can work to further justify your behavior but truth is these are extrapolations of your view on various issues hyperbolized and then projected on a candidate to anger supporters. Evil may be too strong a word, but baiting is not.
I view abortion as the killing of a child because the mother finds it inconvenient to be pregnant. I find human cloning to be dangerous past the potential benefit, I find same sex marriage an oxymoron, I find flag burning a grotesque disrespect of the freedom that flag represents, drugs are obviously a corruption. If that isn't obvious then you either don't know the drug culture or your in it. I especially LIKE less international aid and using those funds to counter the drug culture.
I find most 'liberal' positions to be little more then attempting to make legitimate bad behavior rather then to address that bad behavior and correct it personally. This is a normal stage in refining one's self, to deny it is wrong and that it SHOULDN'T be wrong. Typically a person eventually sees the impact of that behavior effects more then just them and realizes why it's wrong and that it's not some spontaneous rule written without reason. At that point they either change their behavior or accept that they deserve the consequences.
The characterizations you made of Fred Thompson as being for limiting free speech and privacy, a religious government, against self determination, and for the segregation of citizens does cast a dishonest representation of his values. You can work to further justify your behavior but truth is these are extrapolations of your view on various issues hyperbolized and then projected on a candidate to anger supporters. Evil may be too strong a word, but baiting is not.
And those are YOUR views, not facts. That's fine that we disagree. Which is why I don't like Thompson and others do. I still think you're wrong on all counts, you think I'm wrong on all counts.
And I find most "conservative" positions to be little more than an attempt to legislate morality by those who fear and hate cultures they can't or simply refuse to understand. But that's ok because my view of conservative ideals is as biased as your view of liberal ideals. Neither one of us has the perfect answer.
Banning flag burning is limiting free speech. Whether you see it as disrespectful or not it's still limiting free speech. No two ways about it.
Abortion is still an issue of self-determination whether or not you view it as the killing of a "child" because many of us believe that a mass of cells without a central nervous system does not have the same rights as a living, breathing human being. Your view and my view differ but the bottom line remains that it's an issue of self-determination because it is still the government trying to dictate what goes on in someone else's body.
The drug thing is even more hilarious to hear from a so-called "conservative" because you know damn well the only way to fight a "drug war" is to give more power to the government. I can't fathom what kind of conservative would root for that.
And the bottom line remains that treating a group of citizens differently under the law because their biology attracts them to the same sex is unequal treatment. I have not used the word segregation because it doesn't fit in this context so I you're arguing against a point I never made. I wouldn't call that baiting but that isn't honest debate, either.
And you're still quite wrong on my intentions. You can pretend all you want that you have my intent figured out but you haven't come close. The thread asked a question. I answered it in line with my beliefs. A poster made a comment about having a president that can "get things done" and I commented that it's more important to have a president that can get the RIGHT things done. It's does us no good to have a president that's really good at getting bad things done.
You can go on pretending that your view is somehow more important than mine but it's not. Sorry to pee in your cheerios but my opinions are just as valid as yours.
I’m reserving judgment
because he has really fumbled around
(George Will article yesterday)
He was very instrumental on campaign finance reform. I really don't see him as small government conservative but NONE of the candidates outside of Ron Paul (good message, lousy messenger) are really small government conservatives. He may talk the talk but I see nothing in his resume that points to strong leadership. That is one of the main characteristics I look for in anyone who wants to be at top. To me that means someone who can and is willing to lead, who’s willing to make the tough decisions even if they’re unpopular, who's willing to put the country above politics, and who doesn’t rely on focus groups to tell him/her what to think.
I have a distrust of most out of the senate - they tend to be consensus animals vice leaders. Those coming from the house have more aggressive leadership style because they have a smaller base to appeal to. Senators, since the 17th Amendment (elected by popular vote), seem to have gone to a lukewarm disposition and take on an air of being above some fray (unless they are angry at something).
But… if he gets the nod, he’ll probably get my vote. NONE of the democrats who impress me are running for president.
because he has really fumbled around
(George Will article yesterday)
He was very instrumental on campaign finance reform. I really don't see him as small government conservative but NONE of the candidates outside of Ron Paul (good message, lousy messenger) are really small government conservatives. He may talk the talk but I see nothing in his resume that points to strong leadership. That is one of the main characteristics I look for in anyone who wants to be at top. To me that means someone who can and is willing to lead, who’s willing to make the tough decisions even if they’re unpopular, who's willing to put the country above politics, and who doesn’t rely on focus groups to tell him/her what to think.
I have a distrust of most out of the senate - they tend to be consensus animals vice leaders. Those coming from the house have more aggressive leadership style because they have a smaller base to appeal to. Senators, since the 17th Amendment (elected by popular vote), seem to have gone to a lukewarm disposition and take on an air of being above some fray (unless they are angry at something).
But… if he gets the nod, he’ll probably get my vote. NONE of the democrats who impress me are running for president.
Well as your reply is deteriorating this to the 'puerile bickering' level I will just say this:
To answer the OP question, I also think he would be a good President. He is against the slaughter of children, human engineering, monogamous sodomy as a family value, and languishing in drug addiction as a lifestyle. I suppose most are also but he has made a stand on these issues.
Lastly, I have made my case about using hyperbole and misrepresentation already in prior posts and I think they stand on their own. I am not trying to 'piss in anyones cheerios' but rather trying to point out that broad brushes paint inaccurate pictures.
Last edited: