Join The Debate!

Bush has Made Such A Mess

of things and split the party so badly that I don't think ANY Republican can win in 2008.

There is another one

The only conservative republican worth voting for is Ron Paul. However, we all know the conservative movement is dead within the republican party. If it wasn't Ron Paul would be a household name.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul before the U.S. House of Representatives, April 5, 2006

Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against "Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction" that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had.

( take note of words "supposed threat" & "wmd that are no more present...")
Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran - whether planned or accidental - will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country #3. ("imaginary nuclear weapons....Iran")

& BTW

Ron Paul in announcing his presidential run on C-span said...

"I advocated a policy of Non-Intervention".
"If we had just done what I said...
...THE WORLD WOULDN'T BE SO ANGRY AT US."

And When asked about his withdrawl plan said;

"The problem that WILL ensue over there, will be because we went. Not because we're leaving."

BECAUSE WE WENT! NOT because we're leaving???
Isn't that the Dem stance?
and it kinda sounds like he is just going to write off the (BLOODBATH) "problem" and hope the world will LIKE US MORE for doing so!

This doesn't sound to me like a man who has a firm grasp of foreign policy.

Are YOU a voter who...

...wants a candidate that...

1) Will Make Border Security a Priority & Is Against Amnesty For Illegal Aliens
2) Is Pro-Life
3) Will Restore Quality to Education
4) Is Strong on National Defense
5) Understands Foreign Policy
6) Has Impeccable Conservative Credentials
7) Will Appoint Strict Constructionist Judges
8) Is Pro 2nd Amendment
9) Is Against Gay Marriage (Knows the decision belongs w/ the states)
10) Will Address the Entitlement Program Problem
11) Is Environmentally Friendly But Not Eco-Nutz
12) Is A Man of Strength, and Character, Who Has the Backbone To Stand Tall Against The Liberal Agenda

This Man Is Fred Thompson
and if you are that voter, he deserves your consideration.

Visit http://draftfredthompson.com/index.php

Add Your Name To The Petition

Become Part Of The Growing Number Of Fred's Backers

Help Make Fred Thompson OUR 42nd President!

12% of those polled and not a nickle spent... Now THAT is Conservative!

Liberty

Those three instances were

before the U.S. House of Representatives, April 5, 2006

Another speech before the U.S. House of Representatives June 27, 2002

AND

During his announcing his presidential run on C-span

ALL are quotes... like it or lunp it.

Mini

Yes, Mini, but you took them completely out of context and you know it.

Nice try though.

Mag, GWB, DevilsPb, Dave, hack, Uncle

Magnificus,
I appreciate your setting the record straight about Thompson. I remain excited about the possibility of his candidacy even though he has lately drawn criticism from CFR-conspiracy theorists; libertarian purists; and (Did you hear about this one?) Dr. James Dobson, who has declared Thompson not sufficiently "Christian." (How did Reagan ever please so many factions?) My only worry with Thompson is the question of whether he really wants the job. Does he have the fire in the belly to wage an enthusiastic campaign?

GWB and DevilsPaintbrush,
I can understand standing on principle. I have some principles that make it unthinkable for me to vote for Giuliani, who I think would forever ruin the GOP's social platform. However, the libertarian dream of returning to a bare-bones, Founding-Fathers-era federal government is so puristic that you might as well curse every Republican that has ever been elected (with the possible exception of your Ron Paul).

Dangerous Dave,
I agree with your succinct characterizations--especially of Thompson.

hackamore,
I agree with Uncle Max that there is always room to hope the Democrats will defeat themselves--as they did with Humphrey, McGovern, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.

fellowAmerican

Fred Thompson IS a neocon globalist. Check out the principals in the American Enterprise Institute. Reads like a Who's Who of neocons.

Why exactly do you think he's getting so much media coverage when he hasn't even decided to run????

PS

Thompsons popularity is called GRASSROOTS...something Ron Paul will never know

Mini

HA HA HA. Ron Paul's support IS grassroots. He doesn't sell his soul to big business or any other lobbyists.

As far as Dr. Paul's speeches, MINI, you are taking him out of context. That's ok. People can go read them and find out the truth.

I find it more than hilarious that you are intent on taking pot shots at a man who has been relentless in standing up for our liberties and defending our Constitution. Says a lot about you, Mini.

fellowAmerican

I hope you're right.

Fred Thompson

Is also good on the gun issues and sealing the border as well as deporting the illegals.

That does it for me and the kick butt issues of the war on terror are just icing on the cake.

From a partisan viewpoint, consider his high public profile (TV and movie parts that are highly sympathetic) he has the public face that is easily accepted by the public. Much more than Hillary.

I'm happy with Fred T. I'll vote and fund his run when he does it.

Ron Paul...

... is a good guy. I like what he has to say and agree with 90% of it, however, he has NO CHANCE of actually winning the Repub nomination let alone the primaries. He has run for Pres like 5 times already and never made any real gains. I want to ensure that we keep the White House in 08.

If that means voting for Guiliani, so be it, I'll hold my nose and do what has to be done. I won't vote for Mccain under any possible scenario, I would rather let the Hildebeast take the job, but Fred Thompson is a real conservative, not a neocon. Look over his voting record while he was in office as a Tenn Senator.

If Ron Paul actually picks up some poll numbers, at least 10% or so, sometime real soon, I'll support him, otherwise my money and vote goes to Fred Thompson (or Giuliani if Fred doesn't run).

Thasic

5 times? I'm only aware of once.

Fred

Thompson comes off as a good guy. However, his memberships in the CFR and AIE are not good, folks.

Thasic

I used to feel the same way till I read Lever Action by L. Neil Smith. If you read that book I guarantee you'll change your mind about Guiliani.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Don't sacrifice your principles for someone who doesn't deserve the honor. And please don't follow polls, they are easily manipulated and mean nothing.

I'd rather the Dems win than a duplicitous Rino, at least we know what motivates those fools. Besides, when the Libs screw things up bad enough, quick enough, maybe America will wake up and throw all the bums out. Under the Rinos it will be a gradual descent into fascism until one day jack-booted thugs will be asking for, "ihre papieren bitte."

I'm glad I don't have children.

Fred Thompson

All that cfr crap about Fred Thompson is just B.S spin.Fred Thompson is very well liked and resected by Tennesseean and most Southern folk know that he has a strong record on following the will of his people, plus he has had some time to step away from the Political mess in Washington.Fred Thompson will use that to his advantage knowing that he is not apart of the huge mess that has been created by the Pathetic Politicians who don't follow the will of the people.Nobody on the Democratic side can hold BIG FRED THOMPSONS bag let alone beat him in the 08 Presidental Election.SEE YA HITLARY

Dems 84% for Gore?

Interesting. I may have to dust off what I posted in 2000 (here is part of it) based on my favorite poem:

To demonize "suburban sprawl" he wails that "we built flat, not tall;"
His thinking is that we should all live in apartments, multi-floor.
Central planning is his aim; "new urbanism" is the game; (or collectivism,
it's the same)
Restricting lifestyles more and more.
We must never trust Al Gore.

To face the spectre of pollution he has a radical solution to implement the
institution
Of EPA rules more and more.
He plans to go on the offensive with regulations so extensive that driving will
be too expensive for the masses all the more.
Vote for "Dubya," not for Gore.

Obviously a few changes may be necessary. :-)

Speaking only for myself

Speaking only for myself I think it is way too early to pick a candidate. I have my ears and mind open and my top priorities are execution of the war, national security, illegal immigration (hard to separate this from national security but it certainly has its own nuances), foreign policy and taxes. Further, I will need to know the type of person that the candidate will place on the Supreme Court, should a vacancy arise (hard to imagine one won't if Bush doesn't get any more - maybe Ginsburg (74 - poor health) and Stevens (88)).

Confusion...

Yes, I agree, what I wrote last night was a bit confusing, so let me clarify.

1) I believe that the Bush administration has been pretty near liberal on issues of the border and spending policy. This comes from 3 facts:
1st, Bush as Governor of Texas clearly felt that the Immigrants were a positive and not a negative thing, and that we need to change immigration to make it easier to come in legally before we make the border harder to cross. Everything he did and said while leading Texas should have made this fact evident.
2nd, Bush has ties to big businesses who above all want open markets to sell their products and cheap labor to produce their products. Labor in particular will always cause the business wing of the Republican party to look the other way on illegal immigration.
3rd, as a supply sider, he believes that lower taxes matter much more than reduced spending. Reagan did as well. Both are willing to compromise with Democrats on pork spending as long as they can push through tax cuts. Tax cuts spur the economy more than spending stifles it. But in government eventually just like in business and especially in personal finance, eventually, deficit spending comes home to roost. Eventually, debt catches up with you. In the case of Reagan, much of the deficit spending was on military, while in the case of Bush much of it was on war appropriatons. But in both cases they did not cut social programs as much as they wanted as a sop to liberal special interests in order to push through the tax cuts that were their higher priority.

2) There is a big difference in using International Organizations and in undercutting our own sovereignty to them. I am well aware of the movement behind the formation of both the League of Nations and the UN. Having recognized the less than savory reputation and performance of the UN though, to certain of our allies, there is a legitimacy to our efforts that comes with going to the UN. Also, in cases where we have an interest in appearing to do something without actually taking the initiative to do it, the UN can be a very useful place for stalling tactics.

3) Since the 1890's, there has been a split in both parties between internationalists and isolationists.
In the Democratic party, there was always a "peace wing" people who opposed war and American involvment internationally in almost anything. The leader of this wing of the party initially was William Jennings Bryan. More recently, it was McGovern and now, it seems to be a wide range of people who are hard to separate. The second part of the Democratic party is the Internationalists. This includes Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Clinton. They believe in American assertion of power only through the mandates of international unity.
The same basic split exists in the Republican party, but the players are different and there are three sides, not two. There are the internationalists who believe strongly in assertion of American power abroad for what they see as American interests, with or without International support. Teddy Roosevelt and McKinley were the beginnings of this movement. They have split into the Neocons and Paleocons now.
Neocons believe in Americanization of the world, that America will be safest when much of the world resembles us. Neocons believe that the constraint of World opinion make us less safe than if we take along the willing allies and otherwise go it alone. Much of talk radio, The current President, and people like Duncan Hunter and Newt Gingrich are in this category.
Paleocons believe in the International community and consensus to make us safe. Bushs father, Ford, Nixon, James Baker, most conservative print and television media, and Eisenhower all fit into the Paleocon mold.
Isolationists believe we have no justification or need to go beyond our borders most of the time. Many Libertarians fall into this group now. They believe with strong missile shields, well defended borders, and an effective offensive wing of quick strike military, we can mostly withdraw from the World. Prior to WWI, Taft was a leader in this movement, in the 20's and 30's this was the dominant wing of the Republican party, and now that the Cold War is over, it is making a resurgence. Michael Savage, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul seem to me to fit into this mold.

So to conclude this long ramble, I disagree with Bush on much domestically as many Libertarians do. I disagree with his spending compromises, border policy, education and health care policies. However, I am a very partisan neocon on foreign policy. I think we have seen repeatedly that if we do not actively engage in the world, we face bigger fights later. I think we have seen that for the most part, International agencies have far from our best interests in mind. And so i find myself feeling Wilsonian. I do not like nation building, it is often ugly, usually costly, and sometimes unsuccessful. But from my study of history, it is the best of a number of badly flawed policies to defend us from the evil of Islamic fascism.

Reply to Devil....

You said, "While I do not like abortion I have no right to tell anyone what they can do with their body. Neither does the gov't. Where does it end? Same applies to drugs."

I agree with you regarding drugs. The War on Drugs is a total failure. However, I disagree with you regarding abortion. Would you be okay with parents killing their children after birth? I am certain that you would have an issue with that. A fetus is simply an unborn child. It is NOT just a part of a woman's body. The fetus simply lives in that body for a short period of time. The "My body, My choice" argument is total bunk. When you can show me what other part(s) your body that have their own heart, brain and distinct DNA, then I will agree with that argument!

Simply put - Abortion is murder. It is not about government control over people, it is about the government protecting the most innocent and silent humans in our country. It is a shame that the government would even need to stop people from killing their unborn children!

Reply to Devil & jander

Even though the two of you disagree on laws governing abortion. You both share the same flawed mind-set about legalizing drugs! Hence the one big problem I have with libertarians. They seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath-water of government regulations.

A friend of mine once expressed the lunacy of the flawed logic of the 'drug legalization' crowd.

He pointed out that people don't take drugs ....because they are illegal! ...They take drugs to get high!

Legalizing all drugs won't change that one simple fact, at least not in a positive way! It will only make illegal drugs more readily available at cheaper prices, allowing people to buy bigger quantities and to more easily become drug addicts!
It will also entice those individuals that would never ever buy or use illegal drugs to 'give them a try', if they were to suddenly become legal, .....resulting in an exponential increase in additional addicts.

Unless your willing to decide to legalize all drugs including crack, LSD, PCP and other sometimes permanent, mind altering drugs....there would still be an organized criminal element to the import and the distribution of those drugs that don't make the 'legal drug' list!

And if you do decide to legalize all drugs, there still remains the one driving force that motivates all drug users to continue feeding their drug habit. That is the desire to get high...and the addictive and life draining nature of all currently, illegal drugs!

The additional cost in heath care, increased 'individual' crime, lost work productivity, liable law suits, and the continued break-down of the family, just to name a few will more than nullify any financial 'savings' gained from legalizing all drugs. Even though organized crime may not play as big of a role in obtaining and using drugs, there will still be addicts that will commit all sorts of crimes to feed their ever increasing dependence on drugs and their 'need' to get high.

And please, don't insult yourself with the tired old argument that we have 'lost' the drug war, so we should just give up the fight and legalize all drugs. That same ludicrous argument could be used to justify the legalization of any activity that is currently against the law ...such as murder, thief, rape, child molestation, etc.

In the libertarian's effort to be free from government oppression, they want to throw the 'baby of responsible government' out with the bathwater of 'excessive government'! That is unacceptable to most conservatives and is where we part company!

Reply to Photogbill

You are very much wrong. The War on Drugs has been a complete failure. The only thing it has done is make us less free and give the government an every increasing control over our lives. Do you ever wonder how most drugs get into the US? The majority come across the US/Mexico border. Building the great wall of America to keep out the illegals would also stop the drug flow. Yet our politicians never get anything done regarding the border and none of them want a wall along the entire border. Interesting huh.

You said, "And if you do decide to legalize all drugs, there still remains the one driving force that motivates all drug users to continue feeding their drug habit. That is the desire to get high...and the addictive and life draining nature of all currently, illegal drugs!"

You make the false assumption that all or most drug users are criminals and need to commit crimes to "feed" their addiction. While I conceed that there are some drug addicts that are criminals, most are only criminals because the War on Drugs makes them criminals. Recently a government study attempting to show business the need for random drug testing showed that approx 85% of drug users have a full time job. This fact prompted the government to believe that random drug testing was needed by more companies. I see a completely different picture. 85% of drug users, not addicts(although some maybe be addicts) are able to hold down a full time job even while doing drugs(not at work).

Lossed work productivity? LMAO! People being drunk at work is 100 times more likely to cause loss of productivity then drugs. Should we outlaw alcohol? Oh wait, that didn't work did it!

Your concerns about additional healthcare issues are bunk as well. The 2 most damaging drugs in this country are both legal - alcohol and tobacco. The impact of recreational drug use would be slight compared to these 2 drugs.

I am not proposing that we should allow drug addicts a free bill on committing crimes. If a person is drunk/high, they should get the same fine/sentence that they would have received otherwise. I am also in favor of business doing drug test for new employees or when there is an accident at work. But the drug test after you have been hired need to show that you have done the drug recently, not weeks ago like pot. What a person does on the weekend in the privacy of their home is no concern to their employeer.

jander

So...in a nutshell! Your argument is since alcohol and tobacco are 'more' damaging then 'illegal drugs' (you claim), adding to that mix another element (all drugs that are now illegal) will not have a negative effect on either individuals or our society as a whole?

So 85% of drug users have a full time job eh? What types of jobs do they hold? Dentists? Surgeons? What percentage of those occupations are drug addicts? Will there be any restrictions in this utopia you envision on exactly which occupations we will permitted people to hold and perform while stoned? What measure of determination will we use to decide those issues?
What percentage of the population are occasional users...only due to the illegality of their drug use? How many of those would resist the temptation of staying 'high' most of the time, as long as they can afford the drugs to do so?

Are you saying there would be absolutely no increase in automobile or other accidents...no additional deaths....or corporate liability law suits due to employees on dope....no increased health risks...no loss in job performance or productivity.... no crimes related to drug use and/or addiction?

You didn't mention which drugs you want to legalize! Care to provide your approved list? Will crack be on that list? If not....will we be 'allowed' to continue a 'war' on those drugs that don't make your list? Or...do we just follow the Dems strategy on Iraq....just 'cut and run' on the drug war entirely?

So in this legalized drugs utopia you envision, just who, when, and where will we be permitted to
this state of being stoned? Would there be any age restrictions?....and if so?...why?...is there any difference in a kid being stoned and an adult?

You can't possibly be in favor of any 'restrictive' laws on the use of these newly legalized drugs would you? We know kids already have a smoking and drinking problem in as low as elementary schools right now. So I guess having all illegal drugs ...suddenly become legal and available will not exacerbate that existing serious societal problem.

And by the way...show me where I made the claim that all or most drug users will commit crimes. That was merely one proponent of a host of societal ills that I believe would follow the legalization of currently illegal drugs!

All my concerns are 'bunk' and make you LMAO. You wouldn't have a personal stake in this debate now would you? Any illegal drug use going on in your life?...Nothing like that, I'm sure. You just don't like 'big bad government' telling you what you can or can't do!

Your arguments about the 'comparative' harm to our society are pure speculation. But even taking your supposition as fact, maybe you can provide some statistics of the death and health costs from alcohol and tobacco and ...and exactly what percentage of those costs would be an acceptable amount of increase to health care and related costs?

jander

You are 100% right about abortion. Anyone who thinks abortion isn't murder is either lying or delusional. Unfortunately that genie was let out of the bottle and new legislation has no chance of getting it back in. If I thought it could I'd support it in a minute.

The only way to end abortion now is to take away the demand. That can only be accomplished by giving people hope for the future so they don't feel the need to murder their offspring.

Hope is all but gone in this country. We are living under the jackboot of oppression thanks to both major parties. Republicans and dems have no desire to give up their power.

People call libertarians naive for believing that individuals can make better decisions for themselves than the gov't can. But since the dawn of time people have always wanted the same thing. That is to be left alone so they can make decisions they think are best to create wealth so they can leave their children better off than they were. If that is naive then call me naive.

Repubs think gov't can legislate morality and dems think gov't can make better decisions than they can. In that context who is being naive?

But back to abortion. Having children is a way of providing for your future. If your future is so bleak due to outrageous taxes, laws and regulations then why have children? If you are so devoid of personal reponsibility due to gov't handouts then why have children?

Abortion would eventually die on its own when people have hope again. Hope can only be achieved by throwing off the yoke of government oppression. No new laws will end that oppression, only liberty can do that.

The same applies to drugs.