Fred Thompson: The next Ronald Reagan? - Page 3

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Fred Thompson: The next Ronald Reagan? (Page 3 of 4)

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:17:06 AM EDT

[#1]

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!

+1. Never thought of it before. I've always admired the man. Talk about lifting the spirits of the GOP. I'd actually be excited about the election, instead of dreading it. I'm not voting for Mit, Guiliani, or McCain. I'll stay home before I cast a vote for any of them.

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:25:21 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
I've been wishing he'd run since he got into the senate in '94.

+1 However I doubt he would. Really why would he? He'd be taking a pay cut. He is the perfect age too. Born in 1942.

I wonder what ever happened to Jack Kemp? Or Dan Quayle for the matter.

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:32:30 AM EDT

[#3]

Draft Fred Thompson

Hit it !!!

fred

SOMEBODY POST A FIREMISSION

Posted: 3/6/2007 12:12:02 PM EDT

[#4]

tag for later

Posted: 3/6/2007 1:14:28 PM EDT

[#5]

He's got my vote! Liked this one for a long time. Always hoped he would run.

Something about Big John explaining the Japanese inspection process to Cole Trickle and Rowdy Burns that impressed me. Could see him explaining that process to a couple of staff members if they didnt get in line. Hell I thought he made one hell of a Bill France, Jr as Pres of Nascar... Cant wait to see what he would do as Pres of the US.

Posted: 3/6/2007 1:47:02 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Uh, are you dumb?

Nope, I just don't make shit up out of midair to support 2nd hand info when the platform clearly does not do so. Do you really think legal adult porn can be banned?

Does this sound like wanting to ban porn?

...shares the position of the United States Supreme Court in
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), that obscene material is “unprotected by the first
amendment” (413 U.S. at 23) and that “to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas
and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand
conception of the first amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for
freedom.” Miller, 413 U.S. at 34. We therefore support vigorous prosecution of obscene
material by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Posted: 3/6/2007 1:53:49 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Does this sound like wanting to ban porn?

...shares the position of the United States Supreme Court in
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), that obscene material is “unprotected by the first
amendment” (413 U.S. at 23) and that “to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas
and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand
conception of the first amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for
freedom.” Miller, 413 U.S. at 34. We therefore support vigorous prosecution of obscene
material by the U.S. Department of Justice.

WTF does it sound like to you? They say there's no 1st Amendment protection for porn, and they support the U.S. Dep't of Justice's prosecution of "obscene material". Sure doesn't sound like a pro-porn, or even a "live and let live" position to me.

Posted: 3/6/2007 1:55:50 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does this sound like wanting to ban porn?

...shares the position of the United States Supreme Court in
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), that obscene material is “unprotected by the first
amendment” (413 U.S. at 23) and that “to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas
and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand
conception of the first amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for
freedom.” Miller, 413 U.S. at 34. We therefore support vigorous prosecution of obscene
material by the U.S. Department of Justice.

WTF does it sound like to you? They say there's no 1st Amendment protection for porn, and they support the U.S. Dep't of Justice's prosecution of "obscene material". Sure doesn't sound like a pro-porn, or even a "live and let live" position to me.

Well I guess the Republicans want to ban porn then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!oh noes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That quote is from the Republican Platform, posted on the RNC website (page 82 IIRC).

Posted: 3/6/2007 1:58:08 PM EDT

[#9]

Fred would get my vote.

thanks
fred

Posted: 3/6/2007 2:00:32 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does this sound like wanting to ban porn?

...shares the position of the United States Supreme Court in
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), that obscene material is “unprotected by the first
amendment” (413 U.S. at 23) and that “to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas
and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand
conception of the first amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for
freedom.” Miller, 413 U.S. at 34. We therefore support vigorous prosecution of obscene
material by the U.S. Department of Justice.

WTF does it sound like to you? They say there's no 1st Amendment protection for porn, and they support the U.S. Dep't of Justice's prosecution of "obscene material". Sure doesn't sound like a pro-porn, or even a "live and let live" position to me.

Well I guess the Republicans want to ban porn then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!oh noes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That quote is from the Republican Platform, posted on the RNC website (page 82 IIRC).

pwn3d

Although in a legal sense, porn does not equal obscenity.

Posted: 3/6/2007 2:17:02 PM EDT

[#11]

I've always been interested in politics, and besides one local commissioner, I've never helped campaign for anyone.

If Sen. Thompson tossed his name in the hat, I would volunteer my time to help his campaign. He's the only person I can think of, that I would be excited about voting for, at least the only one with an actual shot at getting elected.

I wish someone had a video of the speech Sen. Thompson made after clitons State of the Union Address in 94, IIRC. The year the Republicans took over congress.

His speech was far and away better than bc's.

Sen. Thompson's speaking ability is second to none. I have no doubt if he was in the spotlight, and people heard him make a few political speeches, he would certainly win the hearts and minds of all the Republican voters, and easily bring back all the fence riders and third party dreamers.

Posted: 3/6/2007 2:22:41 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
His verbal destruction of the BATF honcho during the Ruby Ridge hearings was priceless.

"So your telling me that all this mess got started over a couple of sawed-off shotguns?"

"Unreal"

I'd vote for him. Sounds a lot better than Guliani re 2A...

Posted: 3/6/2007 2:33:29 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
His verbal destruction of the BATF honcho during the Ruby Ridge hearings was priceless.

"So your telling me that all this mess got started over a couple of sawed-off shotguns?"

"Unreal"

I also checked his view on other issues. He's got my vote.

Posted: 3/6/2007 2:36:52 PM EDT

[#14]

I can only hope Fred jumps in. The thought of voting for any of trhe current R candidates is nauseating. I think Thompson is the only viable alternative we have right now. I think he is MUCH more electable than Newt Gingrich.

Posted: 3/6/2007 3:31:32 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
His verbal destruction of the BATF honcho during the Ruby Ridge hearings was priceless.

"So your telling me that all this mess got started over a couple of sawed-off shotguns?"

"Unreal"

I'd vote for him. Sounds a lot better than Guliani re 2A...

+1, I'd vote for him just for saying that, that's awesome.

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:29:34 PM EDT

[#16]

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

Woody

At this point, demonstrating some genuine interest is probably a good starting point.

Note that Fred's current acting job generates fan mail, which is probably screened by someone other than Fred.

So, rather than trying to fight your way through all the "Law & Order" fans, I would suggest instead adding your name to one of the threads in the Messages To Fred section over at DraftFredThompson.com. Basically, the idea is to show how many of us are interested in his potential candidacy (and how fast the interest is spreading).

It only takes a few seconds to register, and then another minute or two to add your own comments to one of the threads.

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:50:20 PM EDT

[#17]

This deserves a bump.........and a good old fashioned ARFCOM FIRE MISSION!

Posted: 3/6/2007 6:59:23 PM EDT

[#18]

If he ran I guess it would mean the end of his filling in for Paul Harvey. Now that is radio you need to hear!!

I dare say that he does it as good or better than Paul himself. He should take it over when Paul gives up the reins.

Posted: 3/6/2007 7:02:34 PM EDT

[#19]

There will never be another Reagan

Posted: 3/6/2007 7:22:51 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
If he ran I guess it would mean the end of his filling in for Paul Harvey. Now that is radio you need to hear!!

I dare say that he does it as good or better than Paul himself. He should take it over when Paul gives up the reins.

Knowing Paul Harvey, he'll give up the ghost before he gives up the reins. That said, I think Fred Thompson could do more good for the country doing weekly radio addresses from the White House than just some ABC news show.

Posted: 3/6/2007 7:34:46 PM EDT

[#21]

He and Bill Clinton share the same birthday (August 19). Same as my father-in-law.....

He should have been cast as Col. Tanner in "Red Dawn".

Posted: 3/6/2007 10:52:37 PM EDT

[#22]

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.

We first need a 3rd party that can get more than 5% of the vote. Having views on two ends of the spectrum won't do it. And having a platform with too much radical change also won't do it.

And I'm not just talking about the LP. All the 3rd parties in the US are now in the business of just making a statement rather than actively trying to get people elected.

Posted: 3/6/2007 10:54:07 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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

fred

Not hardly. We've currently got arms, illegal aliens keep pouring in & killing US citizens, use your arms and go to jail with federal charges.

There is not a single canadite that will do anything about the illegal problem anyway. If the canidate has only 1 or 2 flaws like Thompson then I think he would be a good pres....

Exactly, does everyone remember my thread about political compromise. You never get everything you want. Even if you yourself gets elected.

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:01:04 PM EDT

[#24]

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.

And you know why? They represented what most Americans think and if it wasn't for a couple of radical items they would have gotten more of the vote. The Republicans could learn a lot. I was never a Perotisa but in hindsight if they had kept the momentum up they very well could have replaced one of the current parties by now.

The Reform Party platform includes the following:

Maintaining a balanced budget, ensured by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and changing budgeting practices, and paying down the federal debt.
Campaign finance reform, including strict limits on campaign contributions and the outlawing of Political action committee
Enforcement of existing immigration laws
Opposition to free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and CAFTA, and a call for withdrawal from the World Trade Organization.
Term limits on U.S. Representatives and Senators.
Direct election of the United States President by popular vote.
A noticeable absence from the Reform Party platform has been what are social issues, including abortion and gay rights.

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:07:49 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

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.

They are very good. They have two HUGE problems. As much as I agree with the abortion stance it is to radical at this time. They really need to back off of it. And even more important is they are WAY to protectionist. There policies were severly hurt our economy and it would put us back decades.

Their States' Rights issue is spot on.

However they are the only 3rd party as of now I would give my vote to, if they had a chance of winning.

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:09:29 PM EDT

[#26]

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.

Actually the CP leaves social issues like that up to each state. Exactly the way it should be. You get to live in an enviornment you like best.

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:10:02 PM EDT

[#27]

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![%|]

That is because the guy is absolutely brillant.

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:11:10 PM EDT

[#28]

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.

They don't like it but it is up to the States.

Posted: 3/6/2007 11:15:09 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

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

HFRO?

Yes

Posted: 3/7/2007 3:14:46 AM EDT

[#30]

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.

Actually the CP leaves social issues like that up to each state. Exactly the way it should be. You get to live in an enviornment you like best.

And I don't want them fucking around with those laws at the state level. Just because it is "a state right" to do something doesn't mean I want the state doing it.

Posted: 3/7/2007 3:20:51 AM EDT

[#31]

Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Just like Dubya - Teach no sex over safe sex. Dumbass.

Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Thats great for places with high cost of living. More people on welfare. Dumbass.

Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Thats a smart choice....

Voted No to soft money and donations from corporations, but yes to 'other gifts'

Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
Another smart choice.

So far I only like his gun control.

Posted: 3/7/2007 3:48:08 AM EDT

[#32]

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.

Actually the CP leaves social issues like that up to each state. Exactly the way it should be. You get to live in an enviornment you like best.

And I don't want them fucking around with those laws at the state level. Just because it is "a state right" to do something doesn't mean I want the state doing it.

That is the beauty of it. In 50 different combinations surely you can find one that is pretty damn close to what you want.

Posted: 3/7/2007 3:51:30 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Just like Dubya - Teach no sex over safe sex. Dumbass.

I agree, abstinence education should be funded at the State level.

Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Thats great for places with high cost of living. More people on welfare. Dumbass.

Price controls always have worked well haven't they.

Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Thats a smart choice....

Not the job of the Fed .gov.

Voted No to soft money and donations from corporations, but yes to 'other gifts'

Would have to look more into that bill.

Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
Another smart choice.

Good, it can be funded by private corporations when it is profitable. Otherwise keep my tax dollars out of it.

So far I only like his gun control.

Posted: 3/7/2007 3:55:42 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

That is the beauty of it. In 50 different combinations surely you can find one that is pretty damn close to what you want.

I don't want to move and lets be honest, do you really think it would stop at the boarders of states? When state A spends tons of money to do away with porn that is coming from state B, state A will go to Washington crying that state B is flooding the streets with porn and that it is an obscenity crisis. 14 year old boys are getting carpa tunnel syndrome and are going blind and they demand the feds do something.

Just like what we have going on with gun laws.

I just want to be left the hell alone, that is it. I want to keep my own damn money, I want to buy, own and shoot my damn guns, I want to drive an truck that I am comfortable with, and do what ever makes me happy on my own property. All I ask of the government is to keep foreign invaders out and keep roads passible.

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:07:16 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Just like Dubya - Teach no sex over safe sex. Dumbass.

Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Thats great for places with high cost of living. More people on welfare. Dumbass.

Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Thats a smart choice....

Voted No to soft money and donations from corporations, but yes to 'other gifts'

Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
Another smart choice.

So far I only like his gun control.

You are a commie pinko idiot.

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:09:04 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That is the beauty of it. In 50 different combinations surely you can find one that is pretty damn close to what you want.

I don't want to move and lets be honest, do you really think it would stop at the boarders of states? When state A spends tons of money to do away with porn that is coming from state B, state A will go to Washington crying that state B is flooding the streets with porn and that it is an obscenity crisis. 14 year old boys are getting carpa tunnel syndrome and are going blind and they demand the feds do something.

Just like what we have going on with gun laws.

I just want to be left the hell alone, that is it. I want to keep my own damn money, I want to buy, own and shoot my damn guns, I want to drive an truck that I am comfortable with, and do what ever makes me happy on my own property. All I ask of the government is to keep foreign invaders out and keep roads passible.

Maybe you missed the RNC platform quote I posted? Check towards the top of page 5. Pretty much the exact same thing the CP's platform said WRT to obscenity. Don't get caught up in pundit hysterics.

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:11:05 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)
Just like Dubya - Teach no sex over safe sex. Dumbass.

Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Thats great for places with high cost of living. More people on welfare. Dumbass.

Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Thats a smart choice....

Voted No to soft money and donations from corporations, but yes to 'other gifts'

Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
Another smart choice.

So far I only like his gun control.

You are a commie pinko idiot.

+1

His name is Soviet though, what would you expect?

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:14:32 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
[

Maybe you missed the RNC platform quote I posted? Check towards the top of page 5. Pretty much the exact same thing the CP's platform said WRT to obscenity. Don't get caught up in pundit hysterics.

I find that to be equally as stupid but I would dare say that there is no more than 25% of Republicans who would vote for such a silly thing.

What I find to be really stupid, is that there are so many important issues that need to be addressed and fixed, yet so many people are concerned about porn! Take GWB, he created a task force to seize records from Yahoo and Google to see how many people search for porn on a daily basis! Give me a fucking break......

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:15:36 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Thats great for places with high cost of living. More people on welfare. Dumbass.

Minimum wage is a socialist feelgood program that harms small business

IT IS WELFARE...

And it should have nothing to do with the cost of living - if cost of living is your concern and you're making minimum wage, that is YOUR fault, not someone else's

MW jobs are for HS kids and part-timers making 'a little extra on the side'...

Not for earning a living...

By the time you need to earn a living, you should have enough work-history to make a living wage of your OWN ACCORD...

You should not depend on .gov to hand you one...

The MW needs to go - the sooner, the better...

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:21:58 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
[

Maybe you missed the RNC platform quote I posted? Check towards the top of page 5. Pretty much the exact same thing the CP's platform said WRT to obscenity. Don't get caught up in pundit hysterics.

I find that to be equally as stupid but I would dare say that there is no more than 25% of Republicans who would vote for such a silly thing.

What I find to be really stupid, is that there are so many important issues that need to be addressed and fixed, yet so many people are concerned about porn! Take GWB, he created a task force to seize records from Yahoo and Google to see how many people search for porn on a daily basis! Give me a fucking break......

I agree, and by that logic it is absurd to think that porn is what the CP would be focusing on. I doubt you could find 25% of CP members that would back banning it even it that was truly the CP's intent, which it is not. I know I do not support it, although I'm all for tracking down and placing in jail every adult involved in kiddie porn.

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:24:28 AM EDT

[#41]

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.

And you know why? They represented what most Americans think and if it wasn't for a couple of radical items they would have gotten more of the vote. The Republicans could learn a lot. I was never a Perotisa but in hindsight if they had kept the momentum up they very well could have replaced one of the current parties by now.

The Reform Party platform includes the following:

Maintaining a balanced budget, ensured by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and changing budgeting practices, and paying down the federal debt.
Campaign finance reform, including strict limits on campaign contributions and the outlawing of Political action committee
Enforcement of existing immigration laws
Opposition to free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and CAFTA, and a call for withdrawal from the World Trade Organization.
Term limits on U.S. Representatives and Senators.
Direct election of the United States President by popular vote.
A noticeable absence from the Reform Party platform has been what are social issues, including abortion and gay rights.

Sherrick - don't tell me you support direct election of the President, or outlawing PACs?

Those are some of the worst ideas proposed for changing our political system...

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:35:39 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

although I'm all for tracking down and placing in jail every adult involved in kiddie porn.

Agree 100%

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:37:58 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That is the beauty of it. In 50 different combinations surely you can find one that is pretty damn close to what you want.

I don't want to move and lets be honest, do you really think it would stop at the boarders of states? When state A spends tons of money to do away with porn that is coming from state B, state A will go to Washington crying that state B is flooding the streets with porn and that it is an obscenity crisis. 14 year old boys are getting carpa tunnel syndrome and are going blind and they demand the feds do something.

Just like what we have going on with gun laws.

I just want to be left the hell alone, that is it. I want to keep my own damn money, I want to buy, own and shoot my damn guns, I want to drive an truck that I am comfortable with, and do what ever makes me happy on my own property. All I ask of the government is to keep foreign invaders out and keep roads passible.

That is the way the founders set it up. Sure there would be some whining. So what. We have that now. But we would be much freer.

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:41:54 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

The Reform Party platform includes the following:

Maintaining a balanced budget, ensured by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and changing budgeting practices, and paying down the federal debt.
Campaign finance reform, including strict limits on campaign contributions and the outlawing of Political action committee
Enforcement of existing immigration laws
Opposition to free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and CAFTA, and a call for withdrawal from the World Trade Organization.
Term limits on U.S. Representatives and Senators.
Direct election of the United States President by popular vote.
A noticeable absence from the Reform Party platform has been what are social issues, including abortion and gay rights.

Sherrick - don't tell me you support direct election of the President, or outlawing PACs?

Those are some of the worst ideas proposed for changing our political system...

Not at all. Notice I didn't highlight those. However their platform is not as "scatter diagrammed" as the LP platform. And many ignorant people want direct election. And thus they got more votes. I do think if they had gotten rid of a couple of the more radical items they could have been a political force.

That said, it doesn't mean I supported them. I think we would be in much worse shape now if they had. It would have guarantted dems win until either they or the Republican party came out on top.

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:44:41 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
But we would be much freer.

I seriously doubt it. There are way to many people who either A) seek dominion over the lives of others or B) people who are willing to hand over their liberties to an authoritarian source.

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:46:21 AM EDT

[#46]

I would prefer Fred thompson to anyone else in the current field.

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:50:39 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
But we would be much freer.

I seriously doubt it. There are way to many people who either A) seek dominion over the lives of others or B) people who are willing to hand over their liberties to an authoritarian source.

IMO It's easier to hold state officials accountable than national officials. Of course it still take hard work by consituents but it is easier none the less. So by returning power to the states we would in essence return more power to the people.

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:53:43 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
return more power to the people.

Which is also part of the problem. 70% of people polled want Universal Health care and 55% said they would support an assault weapons ban. This isn't the power I want them to have. In this case, the people would seek dominion over others. Doesn't matter if it is 1 person or 300,000 dumbass voters.

Posted: 3/7/2007 4:58:43 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
return more power to the people.

Which is also part of the problem. 70% of people polled want Universal Health care and 55% said they would support an assault weapons ban. This isn't the power I want them to have. In this case, the people would seek dominion over others. Doesn't matter if it is 1 person or 300,000 dumbass voters.

Don't you know by now that polls are pretty much worthless? The CP would repeal all gun control laws. Let's assume they decided to make it a state's right issue, which I don't think they would do because IMO they would invoke the supremacy clause. OK, so you can't own "assault weapons" in NY, CA, MA, IL, etc. but you can go to the local sporting goods hack and buy a suppressed full auto 10" barrel AR in TN, TX, GA, ND, etc with no tax stamp etc. Sounds much better than what we've got now IMO.

Gun Control

The right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation.

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.

The Constitution Party upholds the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. We oppose attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and stand against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition.

We emphasize that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen's protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.

We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.

We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.

Posted: 3/7/2007 5:02:36 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
return more power to the people.

Which is also part of the problem. 70% of people polled want Universal Health care and 55% said they would support an assault weapons ban. This isn't the power I want them to have. In this case, the people would seek dominion over others. Doesn't matter if it is 1 person or 300,000 dumbass voters.

Don't you know by now that polls are pretty much worthless? The CP would repeal all gun control laws. Let's assume they decided to make it a state's right issue, which I don't think they would do because IMO they would invoke the supremacy clause. OK, so you can't own "assault weapons" in NY, CA, MA, IL, etc. but you can go to the local sporting goods hack and buy a suppressed full auto 10" barrel AR in TN, TX, GA, ND, etc with no tax stamp etc. Sounds much better than what we've got now IMO.

Gun Control

The right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation.

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.

The Constitution Party upholds the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. We oppose attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and stand against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition.

We emphasize that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen's protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.

We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.

We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.

Except those states listed are violating the Constitution. State's rights my ass, the Constitution is the law of the land and it has no boarders between states.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Fred Thompson: The next Ronald Reagan? (Page 3 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us