Fred Thompson

imported post

Fred is going to anounce his run for the Presidency 6 Sept. 2007. It's Official.

imported post

Since I'm the 59th person to view this reply-less topic, I'll start:

Don't like some of the stuff I've heard about him, never the less, YEAH! Fred's my man! Best of the bunch I believe.

imported post

paramedic70002 wrote:

Since I'm the 59th person to view this reply-less topic, I'll start:

Don't like some of the stuff I've heard about him, never the less, YEAH! Fred's my man! Best of the bunch I believe.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what don't you like about him?

imported post

Sorry double post.

imported post

The trouble is the only REAL PRO GUN person running is Ron Paul. Ron Paul has voted on the side of the Republic 100% of his votes. The powers to be don't want him that is why they down play him.

From what i've read on places like www.keepandbeararms.com Thompson has voted in the gun owners interest a little over 60% of the time. Lesser of the evils? Might be Big Pro-GUn person going to really be on are side all the way? Forget it.

The only one with a proven record as to being on the side of the Republic is Ron Paul. All the rest to one degree or another are just political hacks

imported post

100%? Are you sure about that?

Congressman Paul voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The Act was a positive example of the Congress using its Commerce Clause powers in a legitimate manner. It was also tort reform, another power the Congress has that was a positive use, as far as affecting Federal Courts. It was a proper use of the "Elastic Clause" in as much as it was necessary to stop State Courts from interferring in the Commerce of Arms.

Fred Thompson is a conservative who has had 5 years to see the effects of the various legislation he once voted on. He has, since last January, been writing short little essay's on his current views and how he was wrong on other issues.

There's lots to actually like when compared to Rudy McRomney.

imported post

Allen wrote:

100%? Are you sure about that?

Congressman Paul voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The Act was a positive example of the Congress using its Commerce Clause powers in a legitimate manner. It was also tort reform, another power the Congress has that was a positive use, as far as affecting Federal Courts. It was a proper use of the "Elastic Clause" in as much as it was necessary to stop State Courts from interferring in the Commerce of Arms.

Fred Thompson is a conservative who has had 5 years to see the effects of the various legislation he once voted on. He has, since last January, been writing short little essay's on his current views and how he was wrong on other issues.

There's lots to actually like when compared to Rudy McRomney.

Click to expand...

He also has made the statement that the McCain/Fingold Campain Finance law that he supported went south when the senate started messingwith it.

imported post

Allen wrote:

100%? Are you sure about that?

Congressman Paul voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

The Act was a positive example of the Congress using its Commerce Clause powers in a legitimate manner. It was also tort reform, another power the Congress has that was a positive use, as far as affecting Federal Courts. It was a proper use of the "Elastic Clause" in as much as it was necessary to stop State Courts from interferring in the Commerce of Arms.

Fred Thompson is a conservative who has had 5 years to see the effects of the various legislation he once voted on. He has, since last January, been writing short little essay's on his current views and how he was wrong on other issues.

There's lots to actually like when compared to Rudy McRomney.

Click to expand...

It was un constitutional. Hence his vote against. It is not a free market policy to protect business from law suit. These court cases should be thrown out on an individual basis. Otherwise wide and sweeping laws like this provide a barriar for businesses to hide behind should the case be warranted in a situation.

as to the subject of thompson:
Fred Thompson: "Generally" Consistent
http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm

imported post

How exactly, is the PLCA unconstitutional? I've heard these claims before, yet no one comes forth with anything that actually backs up the claim.

As for your link to the GOA... There is almost nothing they say, these days, that is relevant. They rely upon hyperbole and exaggeration to make their claims. Why would I believe a thing they say about Thompson?

imported post

Allen wrote:

How exactly, is the PLCA unconstitutional? I've heard these claims before, yet no one comes forth with anything that actually backs up the claim.

As for your link to the GOA... There is almost nothing they say, these days, that is relevant. They rely upon hyperbole and exaggeration to make their claims. Why would I believe a thing they say about Thompson?

Click to expand...

Allen I would likeknow something as all of us are not up to speed on the Acronyms what is the PLCA?

imported post

One reason Ron Paul voted against the act was because of the anti gun amendments that got added. Remember the gun locks and giving the AG the power to say what is armor piercing ammo.

I can't believe so many gun owners believe the amendments where added for no reason. Funny the so callled Pro Gun Republicans couldn't or better to say wouldn't even pass a clean bill like that for the gun owners

I've yet to see any site that shows one vote Ron Paul has cast that was against the Republic.

imported post

Sorry Kelly, I should have been more specific. PLCA = Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms.

Gun Locks: Since many States already require the manufactorers to do this, it was no big deal. They ALL give gunlocks, with every new gun, in every State, for several years now, and the price is figured into the purchase. Making it a federal law, affected us how, exactly?

Soft Armor Penetrating Ammo: The text of the law did not give authority to the AG to determine what cartridges were to be classified as armor piercing. It merely stated that the AG shall conduct a series of tests to determine which cartridges would penetrate soft body armor and to report these findings back to the Congress.

That's a far cry from what the GOA insisted it said (and consequently, what) it would do.

Ron Paul was flat out wrong on this law.

imported post

Allen wrote:

Sorry Kelly, I should have been more specific. PLCA = Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms.

Gun Locks: Since many States already require the manufactorers to do this, it was no big deal. They ALL give gunlocks, with every new gun, in every State, for several years now, and the price is figured into the purchase. Making it a federal law, affected us how, exactly?

Soft Armor Penetrating Ammo: The text of the law did not give authority to the AG to determine what cartridges were to be classified as armor piercing. It merely stated that the AG shall conduct a series of tests to determine which cartridges would penetrate soft body armor and to report these findings back to the Congress.

That's a far cry from what the GOA insisted it said (and consequently, what) it would do.

Ron Paul was flat out wrong on this law.

Click to expand...

I must confess ignorance of these two issues, not that I am not interested, just missed them, as for the GOA (Gun Owners of America) I have mixed feelings about them, at times they seem to be the group to join, and at other times I get the impression that they are a bunch of crazies, I just really do not know how to take them, they say they are the Only No Compromise Group, standing up for our gun rights, that may be so, but they have posted some articles that are seemingly contrary to the facts, and that really bothers me.

I believe that there has been a study on the Body armor issue and it was determined that the current Body armor used by ourlaw enforcement people are designed to stop hand gun ammunition, and it will not stop Rifle Ammo, I might be wrong but I think that was the results of the study.

If memory serves me correctly was not the issue of Gun Locks part of the Brady Law that was passed years ago?

imported post

Kelly J wrote:

Allen wrote:

Sorry Kelly, I should have been more specific. PLCA = Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms.

Gun Locks: Since many States already require the manufactorers to do this, it was no big deal. They ALL give gunlocks, with every new gun, in every State, for several years now, and the price is figured into the purchase. Making it a federal law, affected us how, exactly?

Soft Armor Penetrating Ammo: The text of the law did not give authority to the AG to determine what cartridges were to be classified as armor piercing. It merely stated that the AG shall conduct a series of tests to determine which cartridges would penetrate soft body armor and to report these findings back to the Congress.

That's a far cry from what the GOA insisted it said (and consequently, what) it would do.


So you r saying that the AG can test it but can't say what would be considered as Armor Piercing? What would you guess the point of the test would be?

`So if a state makes a gun law it is no big deal to you if the Feds make it mandatory? Sorry its a big deall to me.

I know you kbnow how the Government want to save money. They wrote the bill and had an extra sheet of paper so they just penciled in the amendments. That was better the throw away a ggood sheet of paper.

The NRA has compromised on every anti gun bill that has ever come up.. The 68 gun law the brady bill the amendments on this bill. Last year in illinois they even went along with the Gun Show Loophole Bill

Ron Paul was flat out wrong on this law.

Click to expand...

I must confess ignorance of these two issues, not that I am not interested, just missed them, as for the GOA (Gun Owners of America) I have mixed feelings about them, at times they seem to be the group to join, and at other times I get the impression that they are a bunch of crazies, I just really do not know how to take them, they say they are the Only No Compromise Group, standing up for our gun rights, that may be so, but they have posted some articles that are seemingly contrary to the facts, and that really bothers me.

I believe that there has been a study on the Body armor issue and it was determined that the current Body armor used by ourlaw enforcement people are designed to stop hand gun ammunition, and it will not stop Rifle Ammo, I might be wrong but I think that was the results of the study.

If memory serves me correctly was not the issue of Gun Locks part of the Brady Law that was passed years ago?

Click to expand...

imported post

I hope this discussion doesn't get dropped because I would like to hear some reasons not to like Ron Paul.

Out of all the canidates out there I find only two that I would consider voting for. Ron Paul and Howard Dean. However I doubt Dean will run.

Mr. Paul seems very well rounded and I like a lot of his answers. I don't understand why he is receiving very little coverage on CNN and all the headline news companies. I like that he claims to be a Constitutionalist. If that claim is true I don't think we could elect a better president. But I can't seem to find anything wrong with the guy. And that bothers me because everyone has something about them that doesn't add up. And I have yet to hear anything negitive about him.

Its still early to call my vote because being the card carrying Libratarian I am I've gotta see who the party will choose to run. But very good discussion I wanna hear more!!:celebrate

imported post

I really don't understand what the big fuss is about Thompson... he appears to be the current GOP condensed into one person, which I guess is what those who adhere to the two-party system are hoping for. Hmpf... I'm still throwing myself behind Dr. Ron Paul.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

I really don't understand what the big fuss is about Thompson... he appears to be the current GOP condensed into one person, which I guess is what those who adhere to the two-party system are hoping for. Hmpf... I'm still throwing myself behind Dr. Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

He's an actor and his TV show is popular. Sadly, the mass of the population would vote for Paris Hilton or Britney Spears if they were running because they put image and name recognition over substance. This is why Fred has a handful of supporters.

Rupert Murdoch's first 3 choices for president are way too liberal so now Mr Murdoch has decided we should all vote for Mr Thompson. He does this through his propaganda ("you're an anti-American liberal if you don't agree with us") channel called Fox News and, at the same time, ridicules or ignores the only candidate who WILL defend your rights and the constitution - including the 2nd ammendment.

Funny how I see people bickering over some kind of "flaw" in Ron Paul's gun rights voting record. When it comes to this issue I would sooner vote for the person with the 99.5% record than the one with the 60% record.

Finally, with approx. 70% of the population against the Iraq war, even a 5 year old can figure out that should the GOP nominate a pro-war candidate we will have Hillary Clinton as president and we will slip into a gun-free self-defence-free socialist surveillance society just like Great Britain did in 1997 once Blair got elected.

Ron Paul is the republican party's only hope and the only hope this country has of remaining free of the socialism that's creeping around us.

imported post

qednick wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

I really don't understand what the big fuss is about Thompson... he appears to be the current GOP condensed into one person, which I guess is what those who adhere to the two-party system are hoping for. Hmpf... I'm still throwing myself behind Dr. Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

He's an actor and his TV show is popular. Sadly, the mass of the population would vote for Paris Hilton or Britney Spears if they were running because they put image and name recognition over substance. This is why Fred has a handful of supporters.

Rupert Murdoch's first 3 choices for president are way too liberal so now Mr Murdoch has decided we should all vote for Mr Thompson. He does this through his propaganda ("you're an anti-American liberal if you don't agree with us") channel called Fox News and, at the same time, ridicules or ignores the only candidate who WILL defend your rights and the constitution - including the 2nd ammendment.

Funny how I see people bickering over some kind of "flaw" in Ron Paul's gun rights voting record. When it comes to this issue I would sooner vote for the person with the 99.5% record than the one with the 60% record.

Finally, with approx. 70% of the population against the Iraq war, even a 5 year old can figure out that should the GOP nominate a pro-war candidate we will have Hillary Clinton as president and we will slip into a gun-free self-defence-free socialist surveillance society just like Great Britain did in 1997 once Blair got elected.

Ron Paul is the republican party's only hope and the only hope this country has of remaining free of the socialism that's creeping around us.

Click to expand...

First off I will Agree to disagree with your take on the situation, I will qualify my following statements with this, I admire and respect Dr. Paul, he is and has been a stead fast Constitionalist, to the point of extremism, but that isn't a bad thing, but he has stated that we here in the United States should be separatist and stay clear of the World Problems, and to a degree he is correct but he is also wrong in that assessment to think that if we stay with in our own borders we will not be troubled by the rest of the world, Wish that were so but it just isn't, Everyone that is backing Paul for the most part is touting his steadfast support of the 2nd Amendment, and the Constitution, it is good to be a strong supporter of both but there is a lot of enemies out there in the World, and even though we would all be armed and willing to protect our Country we could not do it alone, as I stated I admire Paul but he has shown no willingness to address the world stage of events other than to say we should not get involved, just wont work. I respect your support of the man and understand the reasons behind it, I just don’t think he will win the Nomination but if he should win it and he does become the one Candidate for the Republican Party I would support his bid for President.

imported post

Gun Locks: Since many States already require the manufactorers to do this, it was no big deal. They ALL give gunlocks, with every new gun, in every State, for several years now, and the price is figured into the purchase. Making it a federal law, affected us how, exactly?

Click to expand...

Because no business should be forced by law to sell a particular item. If there's demand for gun locks, the free market should provide them.

If congress passed a law that all new cars had to be sold with a baby seat, would you support that as well? What if you couldn't buy a bicycle without getting a bike/helmet/knee pads too? It's absurd. Laws like this overstep the bounds of government, screw up free trade, and are bad for everyone, no matter how well intentioned.

I admire and respect Dr. Paul, he is and has been a stead fast Constitionalist, to the point of extremism, but that isn't a bad thing, but he has stated that we here in the United States should be separatist and stay clear of the World Problems, and to a degree he is correct but he is also wrong in that assessment to think that if we stay with in our own borders we will not be troubled by the rest of the world, Wish that were so but it just isn't

Click to expand...

The majority of the externally influenced problems that we face today happen precisely because we strayed outside our own borders. We funded and trained Osama bin Laden, then he killed 3000+ of our citizens. We funded Saddam and helped him into power, then later decide he's evil and has to be removed from power. Our foreign policy constantly has us backing one person to overthrow another. Then, as soon as that happens, the person we were backing gains too much power and the cycle starts over.

Every time we get involved in other countries' affairs, it comes back to bite us in the ass. The Middle East is like a beehive and we continually hit it with a stick, thinking that will somehow fix the problem.

imported post

Kelly J wrote:

qednick wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

I really don't understand what the big fuss is about Thompson... he appears to be the current GOP condensed into one person, which I guess is what those who adhere to the two-party system are hoping for. Hmpf... I'm still throwing myself behind Dr. Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

He's an actor and his TV show is popular. Sadly, the mass of the population would vote for Paris Hilton or Britney Spears if they were running because they put image and name recognition over substance. This is why Fred has a handful of supporters.

Rupert Murdoch's first 3 choices for president are way too liberal so now Mr Murdoch has decided we should all vote for Mr Thompson. He does this through his propaganda ("you're an anti-American liberal if you don't agree with us") channel called Fox News and, at the same time, ridicules or ignores the only candidate who WILL defend your rights and the constitution - including the 2nd ammendment.

Funny how I see people bickering over some kind of "flaw" in Ron Paul's gun rights voting record. When it comes to this issue I would sooner vote for the person with the 99.5% record than the one with the 60% record.

Finally, with approx. 70% of the population against the Iraq war, even a 5 year old can figure out that should the GOP nominate a pro-war candidate we will have Hillary Clinton as president and we will slip into a gun-free self-defence-free socialist surveillance society just like Great Britain did in 1997 once Blair got elected.

Ron Paul is the republican party's only hope and the only hope this country has of remaining free of the socialism that's creeping around us.

Click to expand...

First off I will Agree to disagree with your take on the situation, I will qualify my following statements with this, I admire and respect Dr. Paul, he is and has been a stead fast Constitionalist, to the point of extremism, but that isn't a bad thing, but he has stated that we here in the United States should be separatist and stay clear of the World Problems, and to a degree he is correct but he is also wrong in that assessment to think that if we stay with in our own borders we will not be troubled by the rest of the world, Wish that were so but it just isn't, Everyone that is backing Paul for the most part is touting his steadfast support of the 2nd Amendment, and the Constitution, it is good to be a strong supporter of both but there is a lot of enemies out there in the World, and even though we would all be armed and willing to protect our Country we could not do it alone, as I stated I admire Paul but he has shown no willingness to address the world stage of events other than to say we should not get involved, just wont work. I respect your support of the man and understand the reasons behind it, I just don’t think he will win the Nomination but if he should win it and he does become the one Candidate for the Republican Party I would support his bid for President.

Click to expand...

Well I definitely prefer Fred T to Rudy McRomney *but* I can guarantee you that we will not have a pro-war president in 2008. The majority of the nation has turned against the Iraq war. If the GOP nominate a pro-war candidate then we'll have another Clinton in office for sure.

As for being "separatist" - you are patently incorrect. Ron Paul is non-interventionalist. He is not "separatist" or "isolationalist" like the MSM and Rudy Giuliani portray him. There is a BIG difference.

You think we should "police" the world? That's what they do in Switzerland too. Those dang Swiss are always trying to police the world and sticking their noses in other countries business. That's why all their citizens are totally disarmed, have high crime rates and no personal freedoms. That's why Switzerland is always being the target of terrorists. That's why they're so frikken poor over there in Switzerland they're begging in the streets so they can buy their daily fondue.

Me, I would prefer a non-interventionalist policy with a good national defence. We need to defend our own borders first before other countries. We need sound monetary and immigration policies. We need a government that is, once again, subserviant to "we the people" instead of growing out of control with bureacratic "jobsworths" creaming off the top of the gravy train funded by us, the taxpayers. We need to get out of the UN (a socialist organization) and bring this whole North American Union and single currency (the "Amero") stupidity to a grinding halt (Fred T is a member of the CFR by the way!!).

If we can do all that, maybe, just maybe, we'll once again be the richest, most free and most powerful nation on earth.