The Fred Thompson Thread

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

What exactly is the appeal of Fred Thompson? Here’s a chance for the Fred fans to toot their horn.

Personally I suspect it’s a case of The Grass Is Greener on the Other Side… The crop of 2008 GOP candidates is so lousy that everyone wishes someone would sweep in at the last minute and rescue the party. I’ll bet that most of Fred’s positions are unknown to the people who keep talking about him. It’s a lot of wishful thinking in action.

It can’t be Fred’s alleged Washington outsider status, because he spent 20 years working as a Washington lobbyist. So I assume he’ll take a pro-lobbyist stance whenever possible.

Also, Fred helped pass the legislation that deregulated the Savings & Loan industry, leading to the collapse of the industry, and requiring a 125 billion dollar bailout by the federal government using taxpayers money. That’s 125 billion with a B.

Okay, what’s so great about Fred Thompson, besides the (R) after his name? Just like Rudy Giuliani, I’m wondering if the more people learn about him, the less they like him.

Prove me wrong.

2

He’s the Obama of the right- a charismatic guy with a short enough- and in his case chronologically remote- track record that his positions on issues aren’t manifestly clear yet. He’s a blank slate on which people can project their own values. A charismatic blank slate. It will be interesting to see how he develops himself. Likability is in short supply amongst the current batch of candidates.

3

Yeah, he has some splainin’ to do. But, when your hear him speak, you know the answer. He is a very reasonable person, and not afraid to vote with the Dems when they are right, which is rare. If he is wrong, he admits it as soon as he finds out.

And he is famous, so the dumber people who would’ve voted for a Dem, will be swayed to vote for him on face recognition

4

Because he’s not a democrat. And, I like what I know of him more than Rudy. Thompson or Romney will probably get my vote.

5

[quote]etaco wrote:
He’s the Obama of the right- a charismatic guy with a short enough- and in his case chronologically remote- track record that his positions on issues aren’t manifestly clear yet. He’s a blank slate on which people can project their own values. A charismatic blank slate.
[/quote]

Well put.

6

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Because he’s not a democrat. And, I like what I know of him more than Rudy. Thompson or Romney will probably get my vote. [/quote]

Romney?! He’s even worse than Giuliani. I’m open to voting for Thompson, but Romney’s a panderer, abortion just being the biggest example. He’s a slick guy with a pretty resume who tells everyone exactly what they want to hear. At least Rudy has some principles, even if most of them are wrong (like infanticide).

7

[quote]etaco wrote:
He’s a blank slate on which people can project their own values. A charismatic blank slate.[/quote]

Nice observation. And demonstrated in short order:

8

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
etaco wrote:
He’s a blank slate on which people can project their own values. A charismatic blank slate.

Nice observation. And demonstrated in short order:

Because he’s not a democrat. And, I like what I know of him more than Rudy.
[/quote]

Ok, drop the pompous act. Number one, yes, I’d damn near vote for any republican over a democrat. Your party flirts far too much with socialism for me. While republicans suck at actually doing away with the immoral and unjust entitlement programs, at least they aren’t ready to nationalize healthcare.

Yes, I’m a fiscal conservative. Pretty much a fiscal libertarian, in fact. Unfortunately, republicans appear to be the closest thing for me to vote for. That is, while making sure the Dems lose. Yes, that’s right. As little as I think of the Republican party’s performance, and stances on certain issues, the Democrat party is a far worse party to my sensibilities.

Secondly, Thompson is not a blank slate to me. I’ve a pretty damn good grasp on his positions. The only thing I’m waiting to see is if he starts flip-flopping once he officially enters. Hence, why I made the comment I did. It’s when he officially enters that I’ll be able to see if his positions are heartfelt, or based on poll data.

And, don’t sit there and presume to use my statement to paint me as some sheep. Not when you sound like the Democrat version of Ann Coulter on these boards. You annoy me just as much as she does. And, she annoys the piss out of me.

9

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Because he’s not a democrat. And, I like what I know of him more than Rudy. Thompson or Romney will probably get my vote.

Romney?! He’s even worse than Giuliani. I’m open to voting for Thompson, but Romney’s a panderer, abortion just being the biggest example. He’s a slick guy with a pretty resume who tells everyone exactly what they want to hear. At least Rudy has some principles, even if most of them are wrong (like infanticide).[/quote]

I pretty much have to hold my nose for any republican. Romney is definitely behind Thompson, as my support goes. But, it’s a matter of Thompson actually jumping in. All indications point to that happening. But, you never know in the world of politics.

10

[quote]Sloth wrote:
immoral and unjust entitlement programs…[/quote]

Kooky!!!

So lets see, let me know which federal programs are “immoral and unjust”? You seem to be the self-appointed arbiter of morality and justice for how we spend everyones’ taxes. What’s your verdict:

Medicare/Medicaid?
the Public School system?
Social Security?
Food Stamps?
Unemployment compensation?
Student loans and grants?
Business loans and grants?
Housing loans and grants?
Head Start?
Disaster relief?

Are any of these “immoral and unjust entitlement programs”? Just curious what you’ve decided, for everyone.

How come the people who complain about spending money on worthless stuff like Medicare and school lunch programs, never seem to bat an eye over the military budget, for example spending money on massively expensive weapons that don’t even work (like Star Wars), or outdated weapon systems that will never be useful, or no-bid federal contracts in general?

I always considered that kind of thinking to be bizarre and hypocritical. If you want to be frugal with tax dollars, great. But don’t be frugal with America’s little old ladies’ social security and food stamps while giving massively bloated federal contracts to grease the palms of campaign donors. Lets have some basic human decency in how we spend our tax money, as well as common sense.

And Bush is spending 2 billion tax dollars a week on his open-ended adventure in bringing Iraqis the vote (or whatever the mission is, this month). I wonder if that bothers you at all. Talk about a waste of taxpayers’ money. Doesn’t seem to raise a peep here, that’s for sure.

Seems that many of today’s conservatives are confused, and don’t know what they believe in, anymore. They say confused things like “Big deficits don’t matter” and “It’s up to us to protect Saudi Arabia from attacks” and other non-conservative statements.

12

[quote]Brad61 wrote:

How come the people who complain about spending money on worthless stuff like Medicare and school lunch programs, never seem to bat an eye over the military budget, for example spending money on massively expensive weapons that don’t even work (like Star Wars), or outdated weapon systems that will never be useful, or no-bid federal contracts in general?
[/quote]

That is relatively easy to answer.

One of the few defendable actions of the state is national defense.

Granted, the US has a national offense, and granted that a lot of money gets wasted (in a government programm, duh…) , and granted that the MIC has a far to great influence on American policies, national defense IS STILL a legitimate government goal.

To coerce money from one group to give it to another is wrong in irself.

Theft, slavery and armed robbery do not turn magically into something else just because a government does it, and wealth distribution is definitely not one of the core functions of a government.

13

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
immoral and unjust entitlement programs…

Kooky!!!

So lets see, let me know which federal programs are “immoral and unjust”? You seem to be the self-appointed arbiter of morality and justice for how we spend everyones’ taxes. What’s your verdict:

Medicare/Medicaid?
the Public School system?
Social Security?
Food Stamps?
Unemployment compensation?
Student loans and grants?
Business loans and grants?
Housing loans and grants?
Head Start?
Disaster relief?

Are any of these “immoral and unjust entitlement programs”? Just curious what you’ve decided, for everyone.

How come the people who complain about spending money on worthless stuff like Medicare and school lunch programs, never seem to bat an eye over the military budget, for example spending money on massively expensive weapons that don’t even work (like Star Wars), or outdated weapon systems that will never be useful, or no-bid federal contracts in general?

I always considered that kind of thinking to be bizarre and hypocritical. If you want to be frugal with tax dollars, great. But don’t be frugal with America’s little old ladies’ social security and food stamps while giving massively bloated federal contracts to grease the palms of campaign donors. Lets have some basic human decency in how we spend our tax money, as well as common sense.

And Bush is spending 2 billion tax dollars a week on his open-ended adventure in bringing Iraqis the vote (or whatever the mission is, this month). I wonder if that bothers you at all. Talk about a waste of taxpayers’ money. Doesn’t seem to raise a peep here, that’s for sure.

Seems that many of today’s conservatives are confused, and don’t know what they believe in, anymore. They say confused things like “Big deficits don’t matter” and “It’s up to us to protect Saudi Arabia from attacks” and other non-conservative statements. [/quote]

If you want to start a thread about redistributing other people’s wealth through force of government, go for it. I was under the impression you wanted to discuss Fred Thompson. I made a comment. You took that comment and tried to make something out of it, that it wasn’t. I called you on it.

14

That’s not true. The federal government has billions in assets, in land and resources. The federal government represents the American public. Your point of view is that the Rockefellers of the world should own those federal resources, instead of the public. That’s what privitization will do… sell our public resources to the Hiltons and Rockefellers of the world.

16

the gov BORROWS tons of money on the shoulders of future generations.

17

[quote]florianopolis wrote:
the gov BORROWS tons of money on the shoulders of future generations.[/quote]

I doubt that.

I think it will wipe out the middle class savings by massive inflation.

A government can allways pay you back, they print money you know…

What that money will be worth then is another matter.

18

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Okay…where do you think they got those resources Einstein? Or for that matter the money to appropriate such things?
[/quote]

The federal gov’t is the largest land owner in the US. The next biggest land owners are the state of AK, TX, and CA. Assets that are not in the form of intellectual property come from ownership of real estate.

As to where the federal gov’t got the land, they took it from Native American tribes.

19

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Okay…where do you think they got those resources Einstein? Or for that matter the money to appropriate such things?

The federal gov’t is the largest land owner in the US. The next biggest land owners are the state of AK, TX, and CA. Assets that are not in the form of intellectual property come from ownership of real estate.

As to where the federal gov’t got the land, they took it from Native American tribes.[/quote]

And who did they take it from?

20

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
And who did they take it from?[/quote]

No one. It was supposedly uninhabited when they emigrated from Asia.