Fred Thompson For President!!!

Fred Dalton Thompson, age 64, is planning to enter the presidential race over the Fourth of July holiday, announcing this week that he has already raised several million dollars and is being backed by insiders from the past three Republican administrations, Thompson advisers told The Politico.

Fred Thompson is a senior analyst for ABC News Radio and a substitute host for the legendary Paul Harvey - yet another right wing ideologue talk show - on which Thompson savaged the White House immigration proposal in a commentary last week. "A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation," he said. "No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it's not going to win any beauty contests."

I don’t particularly like Fred Thompson on Law & Order. I assume he has lines to read that he personally approves of. He is too much on ORDER and not enough on LAW. Other DA’s before him showed respect for the RULE of LAW versus the rule of man. There is one heck of a difference, just ask a detained “enemy combatant” if you doubt me. Due process is a legal concept unknown to this genre of demagogue. He is a genuflecting ideologue on Roe v. Wade. Sort of a Jerry Falwell after church. In short, he’ll not need to count on my vote in ‘08.

[edit on 5/30/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Fred Thompson is a senior analyst for ABC News Radio and a substitute host for the legendary Paul Harvey - yet another right wing ideologue talk show - on which Thompson savaged the White House immigration proposal in a commentary last week. "A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation," he said. "No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it's not going to win any beauty contests."

First of all Mr White, they're ALL actors, aren't they?
Secondly, Paul Harvey is no idealogue. Nothing I've ever heard personally (just a 5 min noon time thing for years) suggests that.
Fred Thompson and every other American with his/her own head screwed on correctly has been savaging the Immigration plan! That topic can be discussed on any one of many other threads for that purpose.
Fred has a diiferent style about him and actually tells you what he thinks and why. You may not like pig analogies but I like it better the "nucular."

...just ask a detained “enemy combatant” if you doubt me. Due process is a legal concept unknown to this genre of demagogue.

I'm not asking any enemy combatents anything man. You act like they should be considered POWs. Or better yet, American Citizens? Please only go there on a different thread. PS- Millions of Americans agree with me.

He is a genuflecting ideologue on Roe v. Wade. Sort of a Jerry Falwell after church. In short, he’ll not need to count on my vote in ‘08.

If you mean he's pro-life, you're right. It's just one reason I'm happy to see he's running. See, now I can vote without having to compromise one of my principals to keep someone who hates all of my standards out of office.

Of course I know you're out there to negate my vote though so it's all good right?

Thompson/Paul 2008

I can dream cant I

posted by Gatordone

First of all Mr White, they're ALL actors, aren't they? Fred has a different style about him and actually tells you what he thinks and why. [Edited by Don W]

1) Yes. But has it also not been said “all the world’s a stage?” 2) If that is representative of his deepest thinking, then we’re in for a Ronald Reagan cue-card re-run. More of the Bush43-type government by slogan.

Secondly, Paul Harvey is no ideologue. Nothing I've ever heard personally (just a 5 min noon time thing for years) suggests that.

You read a different dictionary than I read. Paul Harvey knows the answer before you know the question. That’s an ideologue.

Kindly grandfather imitator Paul Harvey (Sr and Jr) is a disgusting laissez faire capitalist who advocates all those things we thought were left behind in the 1890s. Anti-union, anti-gay, anti-social welfare, anti-working moms, anti-single parent families, anti-UN, anti-anything newer than 1920. A capitalist lackey propagandist. Extraordinaire.

Fred Thompson and every other American with his own head screwed on correctly has been savaging the Immigration plan!

Not me. Nor for the xenophobic reasons Thompson asserts. Surely you have read I say it is a plan Made in Hell unbecoming of American values? See Emma Lazarus' "The New Collosus" for a needed refresher on American values.

I'm not asking any enemy combatants anything man. You act like they should be considered POWs. Or better yet, American Citizens? PS- Millions of Americans agree with me.

If you are right, and the rest of the world is wrong, then you form a majority of one. A society is measured by how it treats the least among it.

If you mean he's pro-life, you're right.

Surely you mean ANTI-choice, there is nothing PRO about this issue.

It's just one reason I'm happy to see he's running. See, now I can vote without having to compromise one of my principals to keep someone who hates all of my standards out of office . .

Ugh, better check MY dictionary for spelling on your “my principals.”

[edit on 5/30/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
In short, he’ll not need to count on my vote in ‘08.

[edit on 5/30/2007 by donwhite]

I'm definately leaning towards Fred Thompson right now. Saving my final judgement until Newt Gingrich enters the race.

I'm curious, if you are not going to vote for Thompson, which Repubican candidate are you leaning towards? Cause from your posts you don't sound like a Republican to begin with. So withholding your support from Thompson is like me saying, "Mrs. Bill Clinton not need to count on my vote in '08."

posted by RRconservative

I'm definitely leaning towards Fred Thompson right now. I'm curious, if you are not going to vote for Thompson, which Republican candidate are you leaning towards? [Edited by Don W]

No, RR-C, I'm not a Republican. Of the GOPs running, I prefer Newt Gingrich because he is a known quantity and he has made expressions recently that tell me he has learned a lot since his halcyon days as Speaker. His learning curve would be shorter letting him get into the undoing of the past 7 years so aptly described by Jimmy Carter last week.

But you’re right, Mr RR-C, I’m a Hillary Clinton fan, first, last and always. History will be made on November 4, 2008! Be a part of it.

[edit on 5/30/2007 by donwhite]

This article compares a Fred Thompson campaign to the Wes Clark campaign...

National Review


The anticipation is is fun to watch...

posted by Gatordone

This article compares a Fred Thompson campaign to the Wes Clark campaign . . The anticipation is fun to watch . . [Edited by Don W]

Fred Thompson is to the Republicans in ’08 as Wes Clark was to the Democrats in ’04 . . In other words, the highpoint of his campaign will be the day he gets in the race, because once he’s a serious candidate - and not just the fevered daydream of a dissatisfied base - voters will realize he’s not all that.

Fred may work better as the No. 2 man on a Giuliani ticket. Sort of like a humane version of VP Cheney.

Running against a Clinton and Richardson ticket.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Fred may work better as the No. 2 man on a Giuliani ticket....[edit on 6/1/2007 by donwhite]

I don't think you understand why I like Fred so much. It's because I would HATE to be forced to vote for Giuliani. Giuliani is not conservative. I don't care about "republican" like I care about "conservative."

I believe liberal policies and standards will be the end of this great nation and Giuliani is on the wriong side of too many issues for me to be comfortable voting for him. Enter Fred Thompson- on top of the ticket!

posted by Gatordone

posted by donwhite
Fred may work better as the No. 2 man on a Giuliani ticket . .

I don't think you understand why I like Fred so much. It's because I would HATE to be forced to vote for Giuliani. Giuliani is not conservative. I don't care about "Republican" like I care about "Conservative." Enter Fred Thompson - on top of the ticket! [Edited by Don W]

Well, I think I understand what you are saying about Fred and Rudy. I had more in mind the odds on one versus the odds on the other. As a senator Fred was 1 in 100. He’s been out of office a long time. I don’t recall any thing he did as a senator that stands out. Rudy OTOH had the “good fortune” to be mayor of NYC when the Nine Eleven Event occurred. He preformed well and did - as far as I know - all the right things. And there may be a liberal backlash going on that would hurt Fred but help Rudy.

Getting nominated means appealing to 50% +1 of the delegates. It is still my opinion that Rudy is ahead of Fred. I know neither man personally so I cannot make any remarks at that level. But on electability, I’d give Rudy the edge. Today.

[edit on 6/2/2007 by donwhite]

posted by Gatordone
I don't care about "Republican" like I care about "conservative." I believe liberal policies and standards will be the end of this great nation . . “ [Edited by Don W]

That assertion sounds far too ideological for me to discuss without knowing more. I think it is often a mistake to prefer a label rather than to address the issues realistically.

The very first Federal welfare program was called AFDC - Aid to Families with Dependant Children. Enacted in 1933, it is still in existence after 74 years. On that basis alone - passing the test of time - it must have features the majority has found useful. The program came into existence in the very early 1930s because so many men were leaving their homes in the Appalachian mountains hunting for jobs in the industrial centers of the country.

They were often called “ho-bo’s” and were said to “ride the rails” or even, to “ride the rods.” Railroad box cars are not very resistant to twist, so under the floor a series of diagonally placed rods are used to strengthen the walls and roof. There is space to ride among those rods and when the Railroad Police were about, many men would hide in the rods rather than get off the train. Very dangerous as you can imagine which demonstrates the desperation of the men seeking work.

This is the program that required the breadwinner - usually the man - to be out of the house. The mother - usually - would be home alone with several children and no income. Neighbors were as poor as the family, so there is very little help. The ususal outcome was for the children to be placed in an orphanage - the norm for that era - and the mother go back to her family or do other unremarkable things to keep body and soul together. AFDC let the mother stay home with the children. It was no easy ride, as the amount payable was by law 85% of the calculated amount needed to live on. This was meant to discourage people remaining on the AFDC program longer than necessity drove them.

A family values program in 1933. This same philosophy was included in the 1935 Social Security Act, effective in 1936, which paid not only retirement benefits at age 65 - now 67 - but also pays total disability benefits and survivors benefits, the latter paid to the surviving parent - most often the mother - who can thereby keep the family together. Family values at work and not in talk which is cheap. See Foot Note below.

These are two examples of meeting a need intelligently. Call it liberal because it takes money from one person and gives it to another; call it conservative because it truly conserves, it protects the nation’s fundamental institutions.

OK, it's your turn.


Foot Note: Social Security is paid for by the people who use it. The size of payments is based on individual contributions. Each person has his or her own account. Part of the 6.2% tax on wages (matched by employers) goes to the total disability program and another part goes to the survivors program. The largest part goes to retirement payments. Both Social Security and Medicare have always been in the “black.” Medicare is funded by a 1.45% tax on wages, also matched by employers.

Medicare will begin paying out more than it takes in by 2010 or 2011. There is nearly a half trillion dollars in the Trust Fund to off-set the shortfall for a time. A similar shortfall in Social Security payments will not happen until the 2020s. It too has a Trust Fund with well over one trillion dollars in it. The up-coming “problem” is exacerbated by the fact the US Treasury has already spent all the money in the 2 Trust Funds. One good reason why since 2001 we should not have been incurring more Federal debt in good economic times. DW

[edit on 6/2/2007 by donwhite]

AFDC? Ho-bo's? Rod riding sounds like a cool x-treme sport we should see on ESPN2.

Please keep in mind that this is the only thread at ATS dedicated to the subject of, "Fred Thompson For President!!!" It has nothing to do with arguing the cause/effect of governmental "cradle to grave" legislation.

I don't need a history lesson from you any more then I needed the bleeding heart point of view from every teacher I ever had. And I certainly don't need it in this thread. Thanks for playing.

Here is a site that has Fred Thompsons stance on a lot of issues...

www.ontheissues.org...

It seems like a great site but I reserve judgement because I just found it...

The media shows what class and standards of behavior they support in the up coming election...none.

blogs.usatoday.com...

Going after a guys wife? Before he's even in the race? Comments like this used to bring about a swift and well deserved smack in the mouth but I guess we're all "used to it" by now.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by Gatordone]

Originally posted by Gatordone
The media shows what class and standards of behavior they support in the up coming election...none.

blogs.usatoday.com...

Going after a guys wife? Before he's even in the race? Comments like this used to bring about a swift and well deserved smack in the mouth but I guess we're all "used to it" by now.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by Gatordone]

I read the link but my pc would not play the clip. I think Scarbborough was referring to exercise and no more. I'm inclined to rate this as a "non" story. A slow news day.

[edit on 6/6/2007 by donwhite]

I'm very skeptic about Fred Thomson. He worked as a lobbyist and thus he worked for special interest groups, which makes me very uneasy. I don't want another president like Bush who pays more attention to special interest groups than to his own constituents.

I also don't like his stance on war. He most likely would continue Bush's policy of pre-empty strike, and I'm vehemently opposed to that.

If you want a true conservative who has some very different and radical ideas to get us out of this mess, vote Ron Paul.

Here comes Fred!

www.wsmv.com...

At the bottom of the article are links to nine other stories...Win or lose- this campaign season will be a lot more fun with Thompsons style on exibit. People that don't know him yet are really going like him.