applesanity
New member
This election will define the future of the U.S.A..
The same thing was said in 2004, 2000, etc.
This election will define the future of the U.S.A..
Of course. It's important to hold them to the same standard we hold the President.If your concerns are legislation then look to your Senators and Congressman.
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.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.
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.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.
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.With that said, what law or spending/taxing change do you expect Thompson will make?
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.
Got links to Fred being for limiting free speech and privacy
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)
I would expect him to support things that put more religion into government
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)
Which is cool for you. You found a guy that represents you. However he doesn't represent me which is why I answered the question posed in the thread.And I agree with all of the above, looks like He is my kinda guy!
Yeah, I remember it. Which is why it disturbs me.Got no problem with that either, remember "In God we trust"?
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.These are great. These are the conservative values that have Fred leading the GOP race by 8 points.
Please show me where I've cast him as evil.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.
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.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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.