Fred Thompson: The next Ronald Reagan? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Fred Thompson: The next Ronald Reagan? (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:22:17 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

We can handle illegals if we have arms.....

fred

Man that is the kind of shit that makes gunowners look like crackpots and not what the majority people in this country need to think. We certainly don't need that kind of thing in threads about someone we would like to support for President.

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:25:23 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So you don't have a problem if Hillary wins?

I have a problem with abdicating my duty to my country and instead voting for comfort at the cost of what is best for the country in the long run. The only thing that would prevent a qualified 3rd party candidate from winning is those of you who won't vote for them only because they are 3rd party.

3rd party will not win period. I will not waste my vote on a party with no chance of winning. I want to have influence on the vote in some way, if I vote 3rd party I take away votes from the side that would be better than Hitlerly.

And you know this how? Perot was neck-in-neck with Bush & Clinton until he pulled out of the race. You're crazy if you think a qualified 3rd party candidate couldn't win if everyone who believed in him voted that way. That is truly haveing some influence on the direction of the country. If you vote for giuliani you aren't influencing shit, you've been influenced.

Correct, if a 3rd party was supported by everyone they could win. Now who is the 3rd party canidate that is qualified to run that can do that? I dont see any 3rd party canidates that have that potential yet. I never said I was gonna vote for Rudy, but if its between him, hillery, and a 3rd party, I will do what I think is right.

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:28:09 AM EDT

[#3]

Voting your conscience is never a wasted vote, even if you lose.

I would support Fred Thompson in a heartbeat. Where do I send the check??

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:30:40 AM EDT

[#4]

I'd vote for Fred Thompson.

As a matter of fact, he's the only one I have very small reservations about.

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:34:14 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So you don't have a problem if Hillary wins?

I have a problem with abdicating my duty to my country and instead voting for comfort at the cost of what is best for the country in the long run. The only thing that would prevent a qualified 3rd party candidate from winning is those of you who won't vote for them only because they are 3rd party.

3rd party will not win period. I will not waste my vote on a party with no chance of winning. I want to have influence on the vote in some way, if I vote 3rd party I take away votes from the side that would be better than Hitlerly.

And you know this how? Perot was neck-in-neck with Bush & Clinton until he pulled out of the race. You're crazy if you think a qualified 3rd party candidate couldn't win if everyone who believed in him voted that way. That is truly having some influence on the direction of the country. If you vote for giuliani you aren't influencing shit, you've been influenced.

Name a good 3rd party? I can not vote for the Green party for obvious reasons. The Libertarian party believes in open boarders and a week national defense, the Constitutional Party wants a theocracy. Once you get into 3rd parties you have splintered factions one voter goes here, the other goes there.

The end result is you nickle and dime the votes out of the Republican party and allow the Democrat party to win. Look at what Nader did, Nader saved us from Al Gore. If just 300 people out of the 5,000 who voted for Nader in Florida had voted for Gore think about how different things would be now.

Do you all want that to happen in '08 to us?

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:34:40 AM EDT

[#6]

I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, his immigration stance may not be perfect but no one will ever find a candidate they agree with 100%

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:36:18 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Correct, if a 3rd party was supported by everyone they could win. Now who is the 3rd party canidate that is qualified to run that can do that? I dont see any 3rd party canidates that have that potential yet. I never said I was gonna vote for Rudy, but if its between him, hillery, and a 3rd party, I will do what I think is right.

Good question. At this time we don't know who all will be running outside the two big parties. My major point here is that when you are evaluating who you are going to vote for your search should not be limited to only D or R with a "lesser-of-two-evils" mentality. This does not apply if you approve of the direction our country has been heading in over the last 15-20 yrs or so of course.

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:38:03 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, his immigration stance may not be perfect but no one will ever find a candidate they agree with 100%

It's not that there are some imperfections. It is that his stance is terrible. It is virtually a mirror of GWB's. Illegal aliens are going to be a crushing domestic issue in the near future folks.

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:40:16 AM EDT

[#9]

Fred Thompson probably won't run. People don't vote for crusty guys who aren't marketable. People prefer flash and personality over substance even though in this post 9/11 world we need substance more than ever.

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:41:51 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Correct, if a 3rd party was supported by everyone they could win. Now who is the 3rd party canidate that is qualified to run that can do that? I dont see any 3rd party canidates that have that potential yet. I never said I was gonna vote for Rudy, but if its between him, hillery, and a 3rd party, I will do what I think is right.

Good question. At this time we don't know who all will be running outside the two big parties. My major point here is that when you are evaluating who you are going to vote for your search should not be limited to only D or R with a "lesser-of-two-evils" mentality. This does not apply if you approve of the direction our country has been heading in over the last 15-20 yrs or so of course.

It is a bit early to see who will be running. But I really dont see a 3rd party doing any good, and unless one comes out of the woodwork, I will vote for a repub. So your saying that you would vote 3rd party if it were between hillery and Thompson because of his illegal stance?

ETA fixed grammer

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:42:52 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, his immigration stance may not be perfect but no one will ever find a candidate they agree with 100%

It's not that there are some imperfections. It is that his stance is terrible. It is virtually a mirror of GWB's. Illegal aliens are going to be a crushing domestic issue in the near future folks.

Without knowing all the details about the votes in that link you posted, it's meaningless. We have no idea what kind of other crap was attached to those bills that may have required him to vote against it. That's clearly a site with an agenda; while I'm not saying that his stance on immigration is 100% acceptable (I have no idea) that site was clearly slanted enough to make me question the validity of the presentation.

I'd vote for the guy in a heartbeat. Sign me up, where do I send the check?

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:45:46 AM EDT

[#12]

If I am not mistaken Fred Thompson is a honorable man and ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

He was a sharp contrast to AL "Get rid of all guns" Gore

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:48:52 AM EDT

[#13]

DraftFredThompson.com

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:49:22 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Name a good 3rd party? I can not vote for the Green party for obvious reasons. The Libertarian party believes in open boarders and a week national defense, the Constitutional Party wants a theocracy. Once you get into 3rd parties you have splintered factions one voter goes here, the other goes there.

I am most closely aligned with the Constitution Party's platform. There is nothing in it about a theocracy, where do you draw that conclusion from? Yes they acknowledge God, so did most of our founding fathers. The platform does say:

The Constitution of the United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

Constitution Party Platform

I'd challenge each of you to look over the platform and see which of the 5 major parties (D,R, Green, Libertarian, Constitution) you are closest too. How can you decide on a party if you haven't even read their platform?

ETA: Let me say that while I know what party platform I am most closely aligned with that does not mean I will automatically be supporting their candidate. The Republican Party has shown me what a mistake that can be.

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:51:42 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

It is a bit early to see who will be running. But I really dont see a 3rd party doing any good, and unless one comes out of the woodwork, I will vote for a repub. So your saying that you would vote 3rd party if it were between hillery and Thompson because of his illegal stance?

ETA fixed grammer

No I am saying I will vote for the candidate/party most closely aligned with my beliefs out of all the choices. I will not vote Republican "just because" anymore.

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:57:11 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

I'd challenge each of you to look over the platform and see which of the 5 major parties (D,R, Green, Libertarian, Constitution) you are closest too. How can you decide on a party if you haven't even read their platform?

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Lets see, bann porn, gambling, drugs and everything else that is fun, based on the Bible, seems like a theocracy to me.

That is the thing none of the parties offer what I am looking for, and I imagine it is the same for everyone. Somewhere you will have to look the other way or compromise on some issues. So if I am going to compromise, I might as well do it with the party that stands the biggest chance of winning- which is the Republican party.

Posted: 3/6/2007 5:58:00 AM EDT

[#17]

I like Fred Thompson. I'm not Ghey or anything... but I'd hit it.

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:00:58 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I'd challenge each of you to look over the platform and see which of the 5 major parties (D,R, Green, Libertarian, Constitution) you are closest too. How can you decide on a party if you haven't even read their platform?

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Lets see, bann porn, gambling, drugs and everything else that is fun, based on the Bible, seems like a theocracy to me.

That is the thing none of the parties offer what I am looking for, and I imagine it is the same for everyone. Somewhere you will have to look the other way or compromise on some issues. So if I am going to compromise, I might as well do it with the party that stands the biggest chance of winning- which is the Republican party.

Drugs are already illegal. The platform does not call for banning porn or gambling. You should read it for yourself instead of going on what others tell you. I agree with you that no one party has it right but some are way closer than others.

eta: If you (everybody) don't want to read the whole platform click on the hot topics like welfare, immigration, gun control, etc. I bet you find a lot that you can get behind.

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:03:16 AM EDT

[#19]

JC Watts for VP,think of the possibilities! But,he probably won't,thinks more of his family(smart guy).

Alan Keys? Guy is just,weird!

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:05:40 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
JC Watts for VP,think of the possibilities! But,he probably won't,thinks more of his family(smart guy).

Alan Keys? Guy is just,weird!

OMG, Thompson/Watts. Freaking unbeatable. The Republicans could sew up the White House for the next 16 years.

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:06:04 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
You should read it for yourself instead of going on what others tell you.

Pornography

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.

Gambling

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:12:34 AM EDT

[#22]

He would get my vote. So far he is the only candidate I could get behind.(That has a shot at winning.)

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:14:13 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You should read it for yourself instead of going on what others tell you.

Pornography

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.

Gambling

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states

Exactly. There is nothing in either of those segments that speaks of banning either vice.

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:15:24 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
JC Watts for VP,think of the possibilities! But,he probably won't,thinks more of his family(smart guy).

Alan Keys? Guy is just,weird!

OMG, Thompson/Watts. Freaking unbeatable. The Republicans could sew up the White House for the next 16 years.

That would be a beautiful thing

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:17:47 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
JC Watts for VP,think of the possibilities! But,he probably won't,thinks more of his family(smart guy).

Alan Keys? Guy is just,weird!

OMG, Thompson/Watts. Freaking unbeatable. The Republicans could sew up the White House for the next 16 years.

That would be a beautiful thing

+1000

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:19:07 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You should read it for yourself instead of going on what others tell you.

Pornography

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.

Gambling

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states

Exactly. There is nothing in either of those segments that speaks of banning either vice.

Not specifically, but you can see it if you read between the lines. Don't get me wrong, some of the stances of the Constitutional party are very appealing, but not enough for me to jump ship.

And that is the thing. Those people who will vote 3rd party will have their votes split as well bewtween the Constitutional party and the Libertarian party. The vote gets watered down and the end result is that neither the Republican, Libertarian or Constitutional party wins, only the Democrats.

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:19:40 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You should read it for yourself instead of going on what others tell you.

Pornography

Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.

Gambling

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states

Exactly. There is nothing in either of those segments that speaks of banning either vice.

Uh, are you dumb?

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:24:17 AM EDT

[#28]

I'd do cartwheels to the voting booth to take him over McCain or Rudy.

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:24:38 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

<snip>
While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.<snip>

Exactly. There is nothing in either of those segments that speaks of banning either vice.

Come on now.....

What is your definition of "establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency"?

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:26:59 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

<snip>
While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.<snip>

Exactly. There is nothing in either of those segments that speaks of banning either vice.

Come on now.....

What is your definition of "establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency"?

Don't forget about that commie talk about collective body.

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:32:55 AM EDT

[#31]

He was National Co-Chair of McCain's 2000 campaign.

If Thompson got the nomination, what are the chances of him picking McCain for the VP slot?

You'd have Thompson drawing strong conservative support, and McCain siphoning off some potential Dem voters.

Would having McCain as VP matter? 8 years later, he would probably be too old to become President (unless something happened to Thompson).

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:35:10 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
He is a True Conservative, and without looking at his stand on the 2nd, I would vote for him if Newt didn't run. ( I would have to see his stand on the 2nd before I did commit though)

Me, too...although Fred might be more electable than Newt. I've loved FT for a loooong time.

HH

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:36:15 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Would having McCain as VP matter? 8 years later, he would probably be too old to become President (unless something happened to Thompson).

Probably not, the VP slot is whatever the President wants it to be. Low profile and meaningless like Dan Quayle, or high profile like Cheney. And he could always dump McCain after 4 years to groom a successor.

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:45:12 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
JC Watts for VP,think of the possibilities! But,he probably won't,thinks more of his family(smart guy).

Alan Keys? Guy is just,weird!

OMG, Thompson/Watts. Freaking unbeatable. The Republicans could sew up the White House for the next 16 years.

BOIIINNNGGG!!!
Did ya hear that?

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:50:50 AM EDT

[#35]

Let me be the first to say it.

Thompson/Rice 2008!

And I am not the biggest fan of Rice, but that would be a tough tag team to beat.

FWIW I do not believe Fred will run, he has made it pretty clear in the past that he had no ambitions for the White house.

However, if he was the GOP nominee, I would pull the lever for republicans once again, provided that rudy, john nor mitt was the running mate.

Posted: 3/6/2007 7:37:50 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Would having McCain as VP matter? 8 years later, he would probably be too old to become President (unless something happened to Thompson).

Probably not, the VP slot is whatever the President wants it to be. Low profile and meaningless like Dan Quayle, or high profile like Cheney. And he could always dump McCain after 4 years to groom a successor.

Speaking of Dick Cheney, with his health issues maybe now would be a good time for him to retire.

Cheney would would leave in an instant if he though it would keep the likes of Hillary out of the White House.

Vice President Tommy Thompson would then become the instant front runner for 08.....

I suspect this will not happen because Bush wants Cheney right where he is, where he needs him.

Posted: 3/6/2007 8:06:30 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Lets see, bann porn, gambling, drugs and everything else that is fun, based on the Bible, seems like a theocracy to me.

No.

I believe the intent behind that statement is to return to a judiciary that doesn't pee its pants anytime the Bible shows up in public like the revisionist activist courts we have today.

Posted: 3/6/2007 8:10:51 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Lets see, bann porn, gambling, drugs and everything else that is fun, based on the Bible, seems like a theocracy to me.

No.

I believe the intent behind that statement is to return to a judiciary that doesn't pee its pants anytime the Bible shows up in public like the revisionist activist courts we have today.

Ehhhhh I have to dissagree, based on their positions on other issues it is clear that they are going to apply biblical beliefs to laws. Ether way the Constitutional party has no chance in hell so it is a moot point.

Posted: 3/6/2007 8:32:25 AM EDT

[#39]

Who do we have to contact to get the Republican Party to drop Rudy, McCain and Mit, and go create a ticket of Thompson/Rice or Thompson/Watts. Either way, both tickets would be very conservative in nature and would be very hard for the Dems to beat. I think the Thompson/Watts ticket would win over the Thompson/Rice team in a national election, Rice would be saddled by the Bush baggage and that would hurt the overall ticket. Thompson and Watts would have no baggage from Iraq or Iran to worry about, plus they both came out of Washington cleanly without any scandals on their resumes.

So, who is the man with the connections to the man that we need to send a fire mission to???

Posted: 3/6/2007 8:44:08 AM EDT

[#40]

Why would he run for president though? Didn't he quit the Senate because there is more money to be had in acting? Or is he just using Law and Order to get face time with the people.

Well he's got my vote.

Posted: 3/6/2007 8:49:16 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Why would he run for president though? Didn't he quit the Senate because there is more money to be had in acting? Or is he just using Law and Order to get face time with the people.

Well he's got my vote.

He never intended to be a career politician. Per the Wiki article, he thought about running again after 9/11, but the death of his daughter pursuaded him not to. That's one of the reasons he'd be a great candidate - he's not a career politician. He didn't get out of the Senate to be an actor - he was still acting while he was in the Senate, although probably not as much as he did after he retired.

Posted: 3/6/2007 10:08:55 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
He has "Command Presence". When he walks into a room, he naturally projects himself as "The Man In Charge". The roles he plays in the movies, and on TV are just that. He's the boss. The man making the decisions. He projects strength, and confidence. Just the kind of sort we need in the white house.
I can see him being "Reaganish" as the President. It's important that we have someone in that position that the rest of the world perceives as someone who won't take any shit.
I'd vote for him.

That's all well and good, but unfortunately, the idiots (clueless sheep) in this country will elect the next president. Im convinced that there aren't enough of us true conservatives (Patriots) left to make a difference. Looking at the field of candidates so far, i'd say we are royally screwed.
Again...

I kinda disagree

IMHO, the conservative vote is still there. You are right when you say look at the field of candidates. There lies the problem. I've voted Rep. in every election since my 18th B'day. I've always been happy to vote for the people on the ticket, but this coming election, I can't get excited about anybody running. I would vote R, because it is better than D, and that sucks.

Give the conservatives a candidate worth voting for, and IMO, they will turn out in droves. I think Fred Thompson would be a candidate people would be excited about.
I think after a few TV ads, once people hear him speak, he would be an instant front runner.

Posted: 3/6/2007 10:23:10 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
"Son, the Ruskies don't take a crap without a plan"

HFRO?

Posted: 3/6/2007 10:26:40 AM EDT

[#44]

Thompson/Rice would be unbeatable and it would assure a Presidency that wouldn't bend over to "World Opinion"

IMHO thats a dream ticket.

Fred Thompson is the best suggestion thus far, since I can't get a movement to draft Ollie North going.

My Dream Ticket was Ollie North and Col. David Hunt.

But Thompson would be awesome!!

Posted: 3/6/2007 10:54:43 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So you don't have a problem if Hillary wins?

I have a problem with abdicating my duty to my country and instead voting for comfort at the cost of what is best for the country in the long run. The only thing that would prevent a qualified 3rd party candidate from winning is those of you who won't vote for them only because they are 3rd party.

3rd party will not win period. I will not waste my vote on a party with no chance of winning. I want to have influence on the vote in some way, if I vote 3rd party I take away votes from the side that would be better than Hitlerly.

And you know this how? Perot was neck-in-neck with Bush & Clinton until he pulled out of the race. You're crazy if you think a qualified 3rd party candidate couldn't win if everyone who believed in him voted that way. That is truly having some influence on the direction of the country. If you vote for giuliani you aren't influencing shit, you've been influenced.

Well said.

And I would definitely vote for Fred Thompson. He could probably win the primaries
AND defeat "The Beast" in the 2008 election.

Even FOX news said that if Thompson enters the race, he would be the man to beat in the GOP.

Posted: 3/6/2007 10:58:11 AM EDT

[#46]

So who has weaseled there way into an email account we can send out begging and pleading to????

Woody

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:03:22 AM EDT

[#47]

Wow! Why had I not thought about Fred Thompson as a potential candidate. But damn, after reading that, I feel dumb for not recognizing he'd be the perfect candidate for us. Now there's a guy who would get me (and other republicans) excited about 2008! I sure hope someone convinces him to run. Out of the current field, he'd sure as hell have my support!

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:06:59 AM EDT

[#48]

+1 on the interesting factor.

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:09:19 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Wow! Why had I not thought about Fred Thompson as a potential candidate. But damn, after reading that, I feel dumb for not recognizing he'd be the perfect candidate for us. Now there's a guy who would get me (and other republicans) excited about 2008! I sure hope someone convinces him to run. Out of the current field, he'd sure as hell have my support!

He was my senator and I hadn't considered it.

from the sounds of things he's abso-fucking-lutely perfect!!

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:10:47 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Thompson/Rice would be unbeatable and it would assure a Presidency that wouldn't bend over to "World Opinion"

IMHO thats a dream ticket.

Fred Thompson is the best suggestion thus far, since I can't get a movement to draft Ollie North going.

My Dream Ticket was Ollie North and Col. David Hunt.

But Thompson would be awesome!!

I'm with you on Ollie. But I could see Thompson being a better choice. I think Rice would make a great VP. And again, I think your right about the dream ticket!

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Fred Thompson: The next Ronald Reagan? (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us