Ladies. Gentleman. Fred Thompson 2008

Status
Not open for further replies.
Playboypenguin, if you look at Bob Novak's columns over the past several years, you'll find that he does not toe the party line.

He was one of the first conservative columnists to object to Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Novak is an old-school conservative.

But I'm not posting here to defend Robert Novak. I believe that Fred Thompson represents our best chance to keep the White House in 2008.

But he faces very tough obstacles. Hillary has already raised $26 million in the first quarter of this year alone. Every other contender has raised only $4 million or so.

If Thompson's going to run, he'd better announce soon, and get a fund-raising machine in place.

I'll keep repeating this mantra on every gun board until the members ask me to leave: the candidate with the most money wins, 95% of the time.
 
IF Thompson is successful in appealing to Reagan conservative the money will appear.

IF Thompson is perceived to be a Reagan conservative except for . . . .no amount of money will help him.

The conservative side of US politics is in no mood for semi-Kestered "conservative" politicians. Far too much of that has been going for for 6 years.
 
Fred Thompson is one of the, if not the best chances we will have in 08, the talk about Hillary having all that money is sickening to me, and for this reason she is not trying to be elected to the Presidency, she is trying to BUY it, I personally feel, and have stated before many times if this race to 08 comes down to McCain, and Clinton there is for sure one of then going to win, but equally for sure, the Country will loose.

I think that with Thompson we at least stand a good chance of getting a good president, at least he wont be Apologizing, for every thing he says, or might do, and the democrats are sure not going to intimidate him.

I get the feeling that Thompson will be clear and concise in his approach and delivery, and will be able to articulate to the people what his agenda is.

That has been Bush's biggest downfall, in the fact that he has not been able to get his message to the People, for trying to get along with the Dems.

He still thinks he can befriend them, and get them to come over to his way of thinking, but they have only one feeling about him; HATE.
 
the talk about Hillary having all that money is sickening to me, and for this reason she is not trying to be elected to the Presidency, she is trying to BUY it,
Click to expand...

That's a weird attitude. In this age, it certainly takes a lot of money to win the presidency. Anyone that can't raise the funds absolutely cannot win it. BLAMING someone for raising funds is odd.

Be against Clinton for her policies, her voting record, or her ability to forgive her husband (or acting skills to fake it), but blaming her for being good at raising funds which is a political prerequisite isn't quite right.

Wish it weren't the fact that candidate with the most money wins, but due to limitations on campaign contributions, it has become the de facto "vote before the votes even start". I'd love to see a Richardson v Thompson presidential election, but at the current rate, that ain't likely.
 
That has been Bush's biggest downfall, in the fact that he has not been able to get his message to the People, for trying to get along with the Dems
Click to expand...
Really? That is his biggestdownfall? Really? This president Bush? Really?
Wow, that is a different perspective than most I have seen. It's not his closed door policies? His spying on American citizens? His constant tactical blunders? His inability to hold a coherent thought or form a proper sentence? His disregard for the poor (like in Katrina)? His poor treatment of vets? His massive deficit spending? His betrayal of fiscally conservative values? It is his "trying to get along with the dems?" Really?
BLAMING someone for raising funds is odd.
Click to expand...
Especially a republican trying to balme someone else for raising money.
 
His disregard for the poor (like in Katrina)?
Click to expand...

Um, no. His FEMA appointee sucked, yes, but otherwise, he acted accordingly. He actually order the evactuation of Louisiana, 3 days ahead of time, to kathleen blanco's objections.

Nope. Nagin and Louisiana messed up. Why is it that Florida gets pounded by sometimes, multiple hurricanes almost every year and seem to hold their own? Because disaster relief is a local issue. It's your backyard, you know it best.

Are you supporting FEMA? Before the precedent of FEMA, the tradition was that relief aid was VERY unconstitutional. The reasoning was that the federal government should not be allowed to spend tax dollars to make improvements that benefited only a particular locality. Federal relief aid for the Johnstown Flood of 1889? Nada. The red Cross took care of that.

I remember an ABC news report days after Katrina where a (biased) reporter was asking opinions from people camping out at the superdome.

"Ma'am, do you personally hold Bush accountable for this disaster?"

"No, I blame Nagin, cuz he had no back up plan. He just tried to put us..."

"Sir, don't you think that bush could have done more to help the residents of New Orleans?"

"no, he's in DC. the mayor is here. He's supposed to know the city better..."

(Cut to commercial)

Yes, FEMA did mess up. But FEMA should not have been depended on as much as it should have. Taking care of Louisiana is a job for the people of Louisiana. And in all honesty, I don't believe in FEMA. And it certainly wasn't bush's fault. FEMA has always, always sucked. They also have a bunch of crazy, crazy powers during emergency times (which they are free to declare), like martial law and such.

From Cato,

Any time there is a natural disaster FEMA is trotted out as an example of how well government programs work. In reality, by using taxpayer dollars to provide disaster relief and subsidized insurance, FEMA itself encourages Americans to build in disaster-prone areas and makes the rest of us pick up the tab for those risk decisions. In a well-functioning private marketplace, individuals who chose to build houses in flood plains or hurricane zones would bear the cost of the increased risk through higher insurance premiums. FEMA's activities undermine that process. Americans should not be forced to pay the cost of rebuilding oceanfront summer homes. This $4 billion-a-year agency should be abolished.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think people can hate bush so much that they are ready to blame everything on him.

We can go even further. Bush is responsible for Global Warming. And Global Warming is responsible for Katrina. So Bush made Katrina. Then Bush decided that in the year after, 2006, there should be no major hurricanes. I guess Bush felt like being merciful to the residents of the Gulf, after giving them such a whipping the year before.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mess with a president that can somehow control the weather, orchestrate a vast government conspiracy to knock down the WTC to jumpstart a few wars, and appear to be brainless at the same time.
 
Last edited:
I think President Bush has done a great job under the cricumstances. The war is a big distraction and that has allowed the democrats to slip back into power knowing that Americans have no stomach for a long term conflict.

The Democrats of course have no agenda other than the continued socialism of the country, more taxes, more free cookies for folks who refuse to work and their continued desire to make the country into one big government control machine. They work to undermine the constitution through judicial activism and their leaders support the elimination of the second amendment and hunting rights in America. They are not supporters of the personal freedom that they claim but personal freedom under their strict socialist dogma. They support continued illegial immigration to add to the roles ignorant voters that will trade a vote for feeding rights at the public trough.

Fred Thompson might be the guy to consider. He has moral fibre, Democrats are amoral. He is a Constitutionalist and supports the freedom of personal gun ownership. There are others that may pick up the conservative baton along the way but I would vote for Fred and maybe even Newt G.
Mitt Romney is someone worth taking a look at also, but I am not sure about his opinions on the second amendment. He has linked up on the wrong side on several bills in Mass.

Just my humble opinion.
 
Prepare for incoming.............
Click to expand...
Yeah, he could have gotten away with just stating how he felt about Thompson's moral fiber and maybe even with the fact that he thinks Bush is doing a good job...hehehehe... (boy it is hard to even type that without giggling)

But to accuse more than half the country of being "ammoral"?

Wording like that pushes a post into the "I am a wacko extermist" territory. We all know republicans have the market cornered on morals. What with all the conservative religious figures hooking up with gay prostitutes, the senators having affairs, the congressmen accepting millions in bribes, and so forth.
 
If Thompson's going to run, he'd better announce soon, and get a fund-raising machine in place.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I am wrestling with too. According to NewsWeek, Rudy the Red is RUNNING AWAY with the thing. That is to say, getting money, supporters, media and all of that equates into winning a primary. If Fred trys to waltz in this summer, all the Repub. fat cats are going to yell....
"who the hell are you? We have established the Rudy G. tidal wave and we are not going to let it all die at this point".

Currently, his fund raising machine, if you can call it that, is an office in Knoxville. It seems if the guy was going to run, he would have made is decision a long time ago and would have jumped in and tried to get out front.
I just don't see the logic in waiting. Heck, the first debate is THIS month!
 
What with all the conservative religious figures hooking up with gay prostitutes, the senators having affairs, the congressmen accepting millions in bribes, and so forth.
Click to expand...

Yep......all those dang religious conservatives are just slimeballs OK........not like their fine upstanding liberal brethern.........no siree.
 
Yep......all those dang conservatives are just slimeballs OK........not like their liberal brethern.........no siree.
Click to expand...
Point is..neither side has room to throw stones are try this act of ridiculous moral posturing when they are all just as slimy.
 
Could've sworn you were throwing stones AND posturing.......my bad.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the misunderstanding. He was saying all dems were ammoral and I was pointing out that reps (which I am one of for now...at least until I finally switch to liberatarian or just independant) are just as bad in everyway. For every dem that gets doped up and drives his Lexus into a bus full of nuns and orphans you can find a coked up rep on top of a $20 tranny prostitute somewhere.
 
Well, he has lost me. I would not vote for him at all. The only position we share is our opinions on gun control. With what little I have read so far it appears he is anti-choice, anti-equal rights, pro sending more troops to Iraq, pro pardoning Scooter Libby, and so on. I also see nothing new in his statements about education, imigration, and other issues. I am afraid a cannot vote for someone just because they talk tough and are pro gun when they disagree with most every other thing in which I believe.
Click to expand...

So he is anti choice...He is against the killing of innocent babies.

Anti equal rights...he stands for people being judged on their qualifications and abilities not on their race or gender.

pro sending more troops to Irag....he stands for finishing what we started and trying to prevent an incredible volatile situation from escalating further.

He is pro gun.

Sounds good to me. He will get my vote if he chooses to run. I am not a a single party voter either, but I am for the death penalty, against the killing of the innocent, for people being judged for their qualities not their race or gender. I am very pro second amendment. I would prefer a smaller government and a government that did not interfere in individual rights. Taxation is bad.

Further, we are responsible for our own well being and defense, the government is not.
 
Ok playboy, what exactly has Bush done so wrong?

Let see, the War? No. The reason we are fighting there today and the region is less stable is because the liberals jumped ship for votes. That’s the only reason. Most of them voted for the war and made speeches prior to 9/11 on the dangers of Iraq. Then they jumped ship with the media to try to win the last presidential election. That is the truth. Remember the days post Iraq invasion when Syria and Iran were kissing out butts because they thought they were next? Americans have died because the liberals helped the enemy divide our country (ever here of "divide and conquer"?).

Let see, Katrina? No. The fact that these people have been trapped and duped by welfare and their democratic and black leadership is the real problem in NO. Katrina just put it on the news.

Lets see, Gun Control? No. Clinton AWB is/was gone.

Lets see, Judges? No. Bush tries to appoint judges that look at the constitution instead of creating laws on their own

Has Bush done everything right? Heck no. But considering the alternatives of the traitors, Gore and Kerry, it’s a no brainer.

LK has spoken!!!! Out.
 
I can very easily put a big "yes" in front of everything you assigned a "no" to in your post.

The war? Yes, he messed up. I believe it was a war of choice but even if you agree with the reasons he then proceded with ridiculous plans that had us using way to few troops because we were going to be "greeted as liberators" even though the top brass completely disagreed. They then removed or replaced anyone that disagreed with their flawed battle plan. Just appointing people like Rumsfeld is bad enough but then allowing them to disregard the opinions of the joint cheifs is worse.

Katrina? Yes, he screwed up. He appointed a completely incompetent friend of the family as head of FEMA. He then repeatidly ignored studies and information that suggested the levies would break and measures should be in place to deal with that situation. Telling everyone to leave is not dealing with the situation. Personel should have been in place, materials should have been in place, and battle plans should have been in place the day the storm hit.

Gun control? No issues there, unless you think not doing anything is bad in itself.

Judges? Two words...Harriet Miers.
 
Katrina? Yes, he screwed up.
Click to expand...

Were you there or did you get your information from the media? I was there and my opinion is quite different than yours.

I assure you there were problems, but very few of the problems were related to anything the federal government did or did not do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top