The True Conservative Choice

Let me first start out by saying, yes, I realize my premature backing of Mike Huckabee was somewhat reckless and without due cause. I'll admit I was caught up in the early hype and jumped to conclusions before I had fully researched each and every candidate. Having done just that, I can safely say I have found a candidate that I am now behind 100%. I also know there is little discussion of this candidate around here as a legitimate candidate due to his somewhat lacking personality.

Yes, I am in fact speaking of Fred Thompson. Through my research I have found Thompson to be the only candidate who comes close to the classical definition of a conservative that I hold dear. One of my tools when researching candidates is to look at the issues and ask myself "What would Reagan do"? More times than anyone else, the positions of Fred Thompson comes closest to answering this question.

One of the biggest complaints I hear about Thompson is his lack of "stage presence". I don't think I need to remind anyone here that the race for President should most definitely not be a personality contest. On pure policy and conservative qualities, I find Fred Thompson to be the best man for the job out of any candidate in this election.

You know what I think he did wrong?

Waited too late to get into the mix.....

While many people were/are complaining about the election starting a good 6 months before other elections, the candidates were "out there" making money and getting name recognition. Right or wrong.

Thompson has some good ideas, a good voting history and electability,(I think), he quite simply waited too late to get into the race.

I really don't think he can now garner enough support to "catch up" and make any real headway. Super Tuesday will ultimately tell the tale however, as it usually does...

Semper

Sadly I think you're right. However, I have found him to be the most clear cut Conservative running in this election and have thus thrown my support behind him 100%. Until he is knocked out or drops out, I will do my best to spread his Conservative message and try to get him the nomination, and the Presidency.

Ultimately though, I have decided no matter who we nominate this year, I am going to be behind them 100% and do my best to see we keep the White House. Although there are several of our candidates I disagree with on a great many issues, I still believe any of them are infinitely better than anyone on the Democratic side.

I agree that Fred is the best choice for conservatives. I don't know that waiting too late is causing his struggle though.

I think the MMS has picked it's favorite two GOP candidates (the two least conservative) and is planting the seed that "it's too late for" everyone else. How is it too late?

Nobody has voted yet...

If Thompson truly is the most conservative then check out how he stacks-up against Ron Paul here:

Commitment 2008

They match-up pretty close to one-to-one except Thompson is missing some info. The big disparity is that Thompson supports the current Administration's war spending and Ron Paul does not. Personally, I don't think borrowing tens of billions of dollars from foreign governments to finance a war is all that conservative.

Originally posted by jtma508
Personally, I don't think borrowing tens of billions of dollars from foreign governments to finance a war is all that conservative.

That may be. But doing whatever it takes to protect this country is.

Originally posted by Gatordone
I agree that Fred is the best choice for conservatives. I don't know that waiting too late is causing his struggle though.

I think the MMS has picked it's favorite two GOP candidates (the two least conservative) and is planting the seed that "it's too late for" everyone else. How is it too late?

Nobody has voted yet...

Of course they have. The MSM has now completely bought into the Huckabee McCain ordeal. Both of which could arguably be running on the Democratic ticket as far as I'm concerned. So it isn't hard to see why the have the support of the media.

I still say if the ticket is McCain and a Dem, I'll cross party lines and vote Dem.

Well if it's Obama.. I wont vote Hillary if she is running against Hitler...

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
I still say if the ticket is McCain and a Dem, I'll cross party lines and vote Dem.

Well if it's Obama.. I wont vote Hillary if she is running against Hitler...

Semper

Well put Semper!

I just don't think I could bring myself to do that though. With any of the Democratic candidates you can rest assured that we will get defeat in Iraq, higher taxes, and a failed health care initiative that will end up costing the country billions of dollars.

While we may get these things as well with a McCain or Huckabee ticket, I don't think they would be as severe.

Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by jtma508
Personally, I don't think borrowing tens of billions of dollars from foreign governments to finance a war is all that conservative.

That may be. But doing whatever it takes to protect this country is.

And therein lies the rub. Sprinkling the planet with military forces and facilities and bleeding-out at the rate of $3-plus-trillion a year may sound like it's protecting the country. But it's not if it bankrupts us. Look at what happened to the former Soviet Union.

Our military spending is 3 times that of China and 8 times that of Russia. We can't afford this BS. You can't have a secure America when we're beholding to foreign governments.

Originally posted by jtma508

Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by jtma508
Personally, I don't think borrowing tens of billions of dollars from foreign governments to finance a war is all that conservative.

That may be. But doing whatever it takes to protect this country is.

And therein lies the rub. Sprinkling the planet with military forces and facilities and bleeding-out at the rate of $3-plus-trillion a year may sound like it's protecting the country. But it's not if it bankrupts us. Look at what happened to the former Soviet Union.


Our military spending is 3 times that of China and 8 times that of Russia. We can't afford this BS. You can't have a secure America when we're beholding to foreign governments.

I agree having these bases all over the world sure didn't help us with the WTC bombing and 9/11. And what I can't wrap my mind around is how our government barrows so much money and then gives money to other countries. What are they thinking? We should have never gotten involved with the middle east and kept our noses out of their business.



[edit on 18-1-2008 by UScitizen]

Originally posted by nyk537
That may be. But doing whatever it takes to protect this country is.

Oh, please.

Are you serious?!

I figured you for smarter than that, to be quite frank. I'll echo the previous sentiment that spending trillions overseas to maintain unnecessary military installations and unrighteous wars is not, as you so patriotically put it, "protect[ing] this country." We are hemorrhaging cash over there. How do you expect us to defend our country if a *real* threat were to rear it's head, what with the bulk of our money and our military spread out all across God's green Earth?! How?! What are we going to do, protest the threat out of existence? Hmm?

I have one question for you: What could be better for the security of this country than to get our deficit under control, have our entire standing army on our own soil, protecting our own borders and interests (nuclear power plants, government buildings, etc.), and to stop meddling with other countries' governments and economies? Tell me: what is a better plan for our "national security" than SECURING OUR NATION?!

How does fighting and dying in a politically and financially driven war protect this country?!

Neither Iraq NOR Iran EVER posed a threat to our soil. The thought of Iran attacking American soil is simply ludicrous. Who has an army/navy/air force that could even THINK of attacking the US?

We secure the borders and increase the military's presence at home as PROTECTORS AND DEFENDERS --what they are SUPPOSED to be -- and I guarantee you we have less terrorism (lmao @ "terrorism") here in the states, and we gain some of our lost respect as a "world leader."

A true leader leads by example, not by force. Think about it.

I would like to say just one thing about this non-interventionist position, then I'll slip back into quietly supporting my candidate...

The placing and maintaining of overseas bases around the world and the decision to remove Saddam and the decision to agree to help the Democratically Elected Government of Iraq by staying as they have asked us too, was made by who?

The President all by his little lonesome in his bedroom with a quarter?

Of course not.

All of those decisions are made by a combination of the Pentagon and the War College combining some of the greatest intellects currently breathing our air.

People WAY smarter than you, me or Ron Paul...

So I'm sorry if all of those great minds don't just pull up their skirt tails and holler "I QUIT" because some guy that has delivered babies and given a few flight physicals or some people that type posts on ATS all say they should.

I like to consider a few things before I start making policy for the United States.

1. I am NOT as intelligent as the minds the President has to call on.

2. You are not as intelligent as the minds he has to call on. (Individually you may be, but not the combined)

3. I don't have the full amount of information at their disposal.

4. You don't have the full information at their disposal.

5. Ron Paul does not have the full information at their disposal.

You may think that this isolation policy that RP preaches is right for the country, heck for all I know it is, but consider your own words...

Who has an army/navy/air force that could even THINK of attacking the US?

Now answer this..

How did we get that strong?

By a policy if Isolation?

or

By following the policy that has been in effect and done us well all these years?

Your correct if you choose number 2...

Semper

I'll have to kind of agree with some of the points Semper made here in defending my comments Axeman.

Not once did I say or make reference to our current situation overseas in saying that defending our country no matter what is a Conservative quality. Why is it that so many people today associate everything with the battle in Iraq? It's like some people have no idea that this country was doing things all over the world BEFORE Iraq, and will continue to do so.

And on some of your other points, if you are asking me if I would rather have an enormous deficit and a little economic hardship here in America to ensure the safety of my country and other innocent people around the world; then YES. You're damn right I would.

This "defense only" position is a foolish one. It's a position held only by people who for some reason truly believe if we just leave these insane islamo fascists alone that they will return the favor. How can you possibly believe this? Do you not realize that if we pull out this struggle now, these terrorists will only believe they have won? They will say they were able to outlast us; that all it takes to beat the United States of America is to stick around until they run away. It will only empower them to attack us harder and more frequently.

And that my friend, is not something I will tolerate or let happen in this country.

reply to post by semperfortis

Originally posted by semperfortis
The placing and maintaining of overseas bases around the world and the decision to remove Saddam and the decision to agree to help the Democratically Elected Government of Iraq by staying as they have asked us too, was made by who?

The President all by his little lonesome in his bedroom with a quarter?

Of course not.

All of those decisions are made by a combination of the Pentagon and the War College combining some of the greatest intellects currently breathing our air.

Hmm... Let's think about that for a minute. Who made the decisions... well, to be fair, the American people did. I did, even. In 2003, when the war started, I swallowed the war propaganda hook, line, and sinker, as did many other Americans. Remember Colin Powell and his briefs about WMD's, etc. and that there was an inherent risk to our national security?

They told us lies in order to garner our support for a war they knew was not righteous. Of course the president didn't make the decision all by himself. We all know by now that he's an idiot stooge; a puppet for the real power behind the scenes.

Let's talk about PNAC or the Council on Foreign Relations, if you want to talk about decision-makers.

The people who supported and made the Iraq war happen are likely the same people pushing for the North American Union and other non constitutional agreements and actions on the shoulders of the current Administration.

"Intelligence" is no substitute for scruples or ethics.

So I'm sorry if all of those great minds don't just pull up their skirt tails and holler "I QUIT" because some guy that has delivered babies and given a few flight physicals or some people that type posts on ATS all say they should.

All due respect, Semper, but that "guy who has delivered babies and given a few flight physicals" has also been sitting on Capitol Hill and been privy to what has been happening there for 20 years. He has a little more insight into the problems and policies there than you or I, my friend.

What you have to consider are the motives and objectives of those "great minds," not just that they are "great minds." Marx had a "great mind," that doesn't mean we should all get behind his ideas.

I like to consider a few things before I start making policy for the United States.

Me too! Let's consider them together:

1. I am NOT as intelligent as the minds the President has to call on.

Nor am I; but as I said before, intelligence is no substitute for scruples or ethics. Hitler was intelligent.

2. You are not as intelligent as the minds he has to call on. (Individually you may be, but not the combined)

Again, agreed; but see my above comment. We must consider the WHY's of what is happening, rather than the justifications we are fed from the Talking Heads.

3. I don't have the full amount of information at their disposal.

Perhaps not, but "their" definition of "information" is loose at best, as we have seen with regard to a Mr. Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Bush, Karl Rove, William Kristol, Condi Rice, et al. We are being manipulated by people who proclaim things as "fact" that are nothing of the sort.

This is plain to see for those who care to look at it objectively, sans rose-colored glasses.

4. You don't have the full information at their disposal.

See #3.

5. Ron Paul does not have the full information at their disposal.

He certainly has more than you or I. He is involved in the Congress and the law-making business. He has access to the reports and intelligence available. He would have to, in order to know what to vote for or not. The officials involved in government have access to much more information than we, as citizens, do. This cannot be disputed. So, while it is true that he may not "have the full information at their disposal," that is probably because his staunch constitutionalist views and personal integrity prevent him from pandering to special interest groups and joining entities like the CFR, the Tri-lateral Commission, et al.

You may think that this isolation policy that RP preaches is right for the country, heck for all I know it is, but consider your own words...

Who has an army/navy/air force that could even THINK of attacking the US?

Now answer this..

How did we get that strong?

By a policy if Isolation?

or

By following the policy that has been in effect and done us well all these years?

Your correct if you choose number 2...

Semper

Semp, come now. We're not talking "isolationist" here, we're talking "non-interventionalist." There is a huge difference.

I will concede that necessity has built our military into the strongest in the world. We did not get that position or stature by twiddling our thumbs. But one must consider the moral implications involved. To quote Uncle Ben: "With great power comes great responsibility." We have been irresponsible. Think about it.

We have not declared war, as a nation, since WWII. We have been in Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, and others since then, with no constitutional authority.

Am I saying we should roll over and "quit?" No. Do I think we should follow the rule of law set down by our forefathers to govern this nation? You be your sweet petootie I do. I'm all for helping out other nations in need; I just want to go about it the right way. They must ASK for help, and we must pass it IN CONGRESS and declare war if need be. Otherwise we have what is happening in Iraq, and what happened in Viet Nam.

You realize the war in Iraq has now been going on for longer than WWII? That is LUDICROUS. We went in under false pretense, because those "intelligent" individuals you referred to earlier are smart enough to know how to manipulate a dumbed-down population to their own ends. This is not good leadership... it is putting the desires of a very few before the good of the great many, and that is wrong -- I don't care how you slice it up.

RP is a very intelligent man. He also has common sense and a conscience, which is something Washington has been lacking for far too long. If the people in power had the people's best interest and the rule of Law in mind, we wouldn't have been in half the shyte-storms that have ensued in the last 50 years, and you can mark my words on that.

I'm not saying we lie down and quit. I'm saying we clean up our own back yard before we go trying to tell others how to clean theirs; and if/when we do, we do it according to the law. Period.

nyk: I will respond to your post as soon as time permits.

[edit on 1/21/08 by The Axeman]

I'll address your entire post later, but I wanted to comment on one point that sticks in my craw when debating this issue..

That if us having gone in under a lie...

That has been debunked, proven false and the truth told more times than I can count and yet it seems every time this issue comes up, someone erroneously mentions it..

We went in under flawed information. In order for it to be a lie, someone has to PROVE, not speculate, or "opinionate", but PROVE the administration had prior knowledge and was NOT acting on the available intelligence...

Power words are only effective if used correctly, otherwise your argument can't be taken as serious as you would like...

There was no lie...

More later, I have to go catch a bad guy...

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
We went in under flawed information. In order for it to be a lie, someone has to PROVE, not speculate, or "opinionate", but PROVE the administration had prior knowledge and was NOT acting on the available intelligence...

Power words are only effective if used correctly, otherwise your argument can't be taken as serious as you would like...

There was no lie...

That becomes harder and harder to say when you take into consideration that the aforementioned "think-tank" entities formulated this plan long before any of the events that unfolded as a result of it took place.

Look at the PNAC's and others' documents and papers, and the dates thereon, and then tell me there was no lie.

Even if I concede that there was no "lie," which I haven't, there would still be the serious matter of complete and utter incompetence to interpret intelligence on the part of those making the case for war.

I am indisposed to speculate on which is more dangerous.

[edit on 1/21/08 by The Axeman]

Case in point:

You still think we weren't manipulated?

This is dated September 20, 2001.

Source

Iraq

We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces MUST be prepared to back up OUR commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

(emphasis mine)

Now then, who the hell is PNAC to tell the President that US forces MUST back THEIR plan?

I call shenanigans, folks. Pure and simple. We were lied to as a means to an end.

[edit to add source]

[edit on 1/21/08 by The Axeman]

Axe,

Look at your source...

I can find a Conservative Rag that will dispute every Liberal Rag you want to bring to the table, but that gets us no where.

There are still people that don't believe planes hit the Towers, while they have the right to their beliefs, we can not take them seriously in any kind of intellectual debate.

Just because some libs say it is so, does not make it anymore so than the Conservative that says it isn't.

Now that being said, I agree with your assessment that if it was incompetence it is perhaps a serious matter. However, you must understand that there is a large contingency of folks that believe in what we are doing. Some of us have even been there and have seen for ourselves the good we are doing, the people we are helping. It is amazing in fact, but I have been shot down so many times about that, I will just leave it there.. LOL

People in the United States are doing better than we ever have in our history. The definition of poverty anymore must include the TV, DVD and Computer because even poor households have them. Yes Yes I know there are people that are homeless and destitute, read my debate on the subject and you will find some interesting statistics about why they are, but that is not the point.

The point is that with great strength, comes great responsibility, to quote a movie or two. How can we, who have so much, turn our backs on those that have so little? Those that still live with dirt floors while their Masters lounge in mansions? I was a soldier, a Marine actually and saw my fair share of action and let me say this, they want to be there. They want to finish what was started. I know because I write to many of them every week.

Drawing into our shell like a scared little turtle is not something I would consider good policy for a country as great and powerful as ours.

Also the question still stands...

How did we manage to become as powerful as we are? The answer I gave is still pertinent, by following the same policy we are following now...

Like my Granny used to say... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Semper

Well, it’s a sad day for Fred Heads everywhere. Fred Thompson officially withdrew from the Presidential race today. This really leaves me saddened and a little disheartened. I’m not quite sure where to focus my support at this point now. I think the best course of action at this point is to step back and take a fresh look at some of the remaining candidates. Although considering of the few major candidates left, two of them are basically Liberals in disguise, it won’t be a hard decision.

In any case this is a sad day for me. However things will move on, and the fight against Hillary and the Dems must continue.