Why isn’t Fred Thompson doing better in the polls? He’s exactly the candidate Republicans want, so why aren’t they voting for him? You have the toughness of Giuliani without all the baggage. There’s also the social conservatism of Huckabee without the liberal populism. Also, he’s not Mormon, so no worries about how that will play. So what’s the problem?
People say he’s too lazy and not campaigning hard enough. What the hell is that crap? He can’t just be the perfect candidate, he also has to bark like a dog for you to show how much he wants to be president? Fred Thompson does not bark like a dog. That’s part of the charm of Fred Thompson. So “lazy” is a stupid reason and I don’t believe it.
With Republicans having been given the exact candidate they’ve all been asking for, what possibly could explain that some aren’t planning on voting for him? Occam’s Razor says the reason must be the populace is infected with some sort of brain-eating bacteria. Those with an early stage of the disease are Huckabee supporters (“He’s likes the Bible and he talks purty!”) and those with an advanced stage are Ron Paul supporters (“The only hope for America! Where’s my pants?!”). As I’ve always said, brain-eating bacteria is a problem we have to remain vigilant for (and why you always wash your hands after using the bathroom), but obviously someone dropped the ball here. Now we need to isolate Ron Paul supporters from the general populace and forcefully inject antibiotics into Huckabee supporters to see if we can save them before its too late.
No one ever said democracy was easy.
Hey… I’m not wearing pants! Does that mean I am infected? Do I support Ron Paul?! I need some pants!
You are obviously part of the problem. Attacking RP supporters will not help the little fred heads. Isolation? sounds like another bush-lite candidacy. yawn.
I suggest that anyone that supported the invasion of Iraq and/or the continued occupation are the ones suffering from “brain-eating bacteria”. How much stupider could one possibly get?
#3 – Posted by: Rolland on December 14, 2007 01:06 PM
Well, I’m not sure how liberating people from an evil dictator is stupid, but I can sure as hell see why trollin the interwebs for any mention of Ron Paul is stupid.. So in other words, the answer to your question is much.
You are stupid.
Which means your dumb.
Which means you have a lack of intelligence.
Which means your brain doesn’t work right.
Which means your Crazy.
Which means you support Ron Paul.
“Stupider” isnt a word. That being said, Ron Paul is the only 100% conservative running, Fred Thompson is close (I would say around 75%) and the rest are very far off (the other republicans could easily be running as Democrats). Paul is the Goldwater/Reagan the Republican party has been asking for (though not quite as charismatic or as good a speaker as we would like)so I dont understand why people in the Republican party are trying to make him look like hes a ‘fringe” candidate. Anyways if Paul isnt nominated the only other way I will be voting Republican is if Fred Thompson is the candidate and even then I will have to hold my nose and vote. If it isnt Paul or Thompson you can count on my write in vote for the only conservative running, Ron Paul.
obviously someone dropped the ball here
Hah! Speaking of dropped balls, how about the Republican ballot in Delaware? Fred Thompson isn’t going to be on it, because some clown in his campaign organization (infected, perhaps, with brain-eating bacteria) couldn’t be bothered to submit the necessary 500-signature petition.
Personally, I think a lot of Fred’s problems probably stem from his campaign organization.
Rolland, it’s called Google News. It’s not “trollin the interwebs.”
Maybe if you cared about your candidate you’d do the same.
Try it. It’s easy! Search: warmongering lazy “law and order” guy”
I’m sure you’ll find something relevant.
My mistake, my previous post was directed towards AR, not Rolland.
Damn you, brain-infecting bacteria!
#5 – Posted by: Timothy Boyle on December 14, 2007 01:21 PM
….. Yah stupider isn’t a word.. also my entire comment was pretty stupid. Do I really need to explain it? I was making fun of Rolland by posting a comment that was dumber than his.
That said its nice to hear that at least one PaulBot will actually vote Republican. Still I maintain that trolling the interweb for mentions of Ron Paul is teh stupid.
The problem with Fred is that his positions on the interest rates given to Social Security surpluses have yet to be compared with the standard growth of the … SLORP! CHOMP! … Oooh! Look, a birdie! That android fellow with the great hair is saying something about making guvermint more ‘ficcient by giving ’em a big audit! Yowza, let’s do that! Then I can go back into my home and watch more little people on the glass make funny pee-pee jokes!
::sigh:: Silly Ronulans, the presidency is for sane people.
I did want to mention Ron Paul in response to this post, though. First: I will be voting for Thompson, unless he pulls out of the race to continue his day job fighting crime in Gotham City; I realize that Ron Paul is so loopy they slap a toucan on the box as a mascot — he also would not look out of place as a lawn gnome. That said, I wish more of our candidates would talk like this:
John Stossel: The Department of Education. You’d get rid of it?
RonPaul: Yes. We don’t need it.
JS: How will people get educated?
RP: We might get better education. The evidence shows, since the 1950s, since the federal government’s gotten involved, the quality of education has gone down, and the cost has gone up.
…
JS: Other cabinet departments? Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development. You’d get rid of all of them?
RP: Yeah. Of course, that’s not on the immediate agenda, but they’re unnecessary, and we should think about what kind of a country we would have without these departments, and I think we would have a better country, and all those problems that they’re supposed to solve, I think, would be lessened.
JS: The Commerce Department? We don’t need the Commerce Department to have commerce?
RP: No, absolutely not.
…
RP: Maybe if you and I had the airlines, we might have said, ‘Hey, you know, we want to protect our passengers. Maybe we should have a stronger door on there, maybe we ought to give our pilots a gun.’ So 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.
JS: So government creates too many rules, and the wrong ones?
RP: That’s basically it.
Sure it’s like when the crazy guy on the street corner goes “They’re trying to control your life!” and you say “Yeah, they are!” then he says “That’s why they put these radios in my teeth!” and you walk away quickly. But I consider myself open-minded enough to give him a (single) point. Anybody who wants to trim some of the (tremendous amount of) fat off the federal gov’t deserves to spread that message. Just for the love of God don’t try to give him any actual power.
“I suggest that anyone that supported the invasion of Iraq and/or the continued occupation are the ones suffering from “brain-eating bacteria”. How much stupider could one possibly get?”
Well, judging by your post, a lot stupider. (Or is that more stupid? I forget.)
#4 – Posted by: AR on December 14, 2007 01:16 PM
Though Rolland clearly isnt the most intelligent (he uses words like ‘stupider’) he is correct in regards to the war.
First off America is not the policeman of the world and as conservatives we should understand this. We are the champions only of our own freedom not of others (John Q. Adams explains that best). The American people should not have to pay the cost (in dollars or in lives) of “liberating” (is it liberating if another tyranny take its place, or if we mess their country up even more so then it was?) anyone in any other country around the world.
Also if people understood the history of Iraq then we would have known that this whole undertaking would not end up being a success (I used to support the war but that was before I knew my history).
Also just to remind the so-called conservatives out there, this foreign policy of military interventionsim is a LIBERAL foreign policy.
Part of his problem for me is being from the senate. We haven’t elected a senator for president since JFK. Fred reminds me of Dole (without the ED). I thought Dole was great and he should have won but he didn’t. I know Hillary is from the senate but for this race she may as well be running as the incumbent. If Fred flops we end up with hillary and that is just too horrifying a chance to take.
I’m not wearing pants, but it has nothing to with Ron Paul. I just drank a bunch of Brawndo, and now I NEED NEW PANTS!!!
#13 – Posted by: Timothy Boyle on December 14, 2007 01:51 PM
What makes an Americans freedom more important than an Iraqis, and what Tyranny is taking the place of Saddam?
Well said, my friend. About time we voted someone into office that actually has a pair.
Oh, and I wanted to say thanks. Ace blocks comments from us lowly people who only have MySpace URL’s.
Hi to Sarah. 🙂
Hey, what gives! IMAO has been highjacked by romulans and wierdos! Fred Thompson is not pleased. He called and said that you shall all feel his wrath soon. Plan on an extended stay in the Eternal Pit of Doom along with Hillary….Bwahahaha!!!
We haven’t even had a vote yet and the elites are already telling us who won. Idiots! Let’s wait and watch Fred put his boot up someone’s ass and then we’ll see what everyone has to say…
#16 – Posted by: AR on December 14, 2007 02:42 PM
First off you need to know what freedom means, because we aren’t even free here (we used to be but people are more inclined to rule others and so we have lost all respect for the basic principle that America was founded upon i.e. freedom). Second it is not that Iraqis freedom doesnt matter, just that we do not have the moral authority to go around the world and claim that we know what is best for them. Third, we can only make decisions for ourselves within our own political boundries. We cannot FORCE anyone to become more like us, we can only try and persuade them through example. Fourth, you as an individual can go help these people but the government cannot, because when the government does so they must force people to go fight and/or they must take money from the citizen be force (this is unjust, no one should be forced to pay for something they deem wrong…this is why I think I should get my portion of taxes back that go to the UN). Fifth, we are not sure what tyranny will replace Saddam, but my bet is it will be some tyrannical religious government that will take over once we leave and it will probably be deomcraticaly elected (I hope I am wrong, but based on the history of that region its probably the likely outcome).
“Stupider” is too a word. It’s one of the few words schoolchildren have available to rhyme with “Jupiter”. Don’t take that word away from them! Think of The Children ™!
NO Truer words could have been spoken, HuckaDean is only superficial and RP is and extremist.. the only good candidate is Fred! He is everything and that much more.. thanks for the great and HONEST article.
#21 – Posted by: Arlette Nelson on December 14, 2007 03:20 PM
Ron Paul may be “extreme” but then I guess so was Jefferson, Washington and the rest of the founders. Considering Paul’s political beliefs are the exact same as theirs, I hope you are not trying to say Paul’s extremism is bad. It is a sad day though when following the Constitution is said to be extreme and esepcially when it is a “conservative” who says it. Let us not forget what the great CONSERVATIVE Goldwater said “extremsim in the defense of liberty is no vice! Moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue!”
I understand if you don’t want to vote for Thompson. Maybe you think the Middle East will go back to normal once we leave. Maybe you think the Mormon, Baptist or philandering heathen can beat Clinton or Obama. Maybe you think Roger Clemens is innocent.
But read this article and tell me you don’t think Thompson’s a good story.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h7UszYSyC792NwWjdeIibhU-1VDgD8THDSI00
#23 – Posted by: Seth on December 14, 2007 03:45 PM
I am assuming this is directed at me…
As I said, Fred is my second choice and if Paul or Thompson isnt the nominee then I do not know how I could in good concience vote for the Republican candidate.
#19 – Posted by: Timothy Boyle on December 14, 2007 03:13 PM
We don’t have the “moral authority”? Says you.
I’m not going to debate this anymore, I know what my morality tells me, and I won’t bother trying to justify it to you.
#22 – Posted by: Timothy Boyle on December 14, 2007 03:33 PM
“Ron Paul may be “extreme” but then I guess so was Jefferson, Washington and the rest of the founders.”
Jefferson? Hmm… its not like he ever started a controversial war against terrorists or anything right?
Two dozen posts in, and this has turned into a strange thread.
Moving right along: I haven’t kept track of how many campaign appearances and media outlet contacts each candidate has made. But, Fred needs to be making every bit as many as any other candidate.
Beg to differ, but “lazy” is a bum rap. When I hire people, anyone who makes it to an interview is capable of doing the job. The question is: will they? Desire is important.
I think that, except for Romney (who is kind of like Nixon and Rockefeller rolled into one), any of the Republican candidates would do at least a halfway decent job. The question is: who has the fire in their belly?
Let’s hit the afterburners, Fred.
No direction, but I do think Paul is a little looney. Less government is good, but he goes too far in dismissing the legitimate role of a centralized government.
#25 – Posted by: AR on December 14, 2007 03:58 PM
The difference between Jeffersons war against the Barbary pirates and the current “war on terror” is that Jefferson went about it in a Constitutional manner, while the current administration has not… http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html
#27 – Posted by: Seth on December 14, 2007 04:03 PM
Paul believes there is a legitimate role for the central government, those enumerated in the Constitution. Isnt this a conservative web site?!?! Shouldnt you guys understand and respect the Consitution, it is supposed to be the law of the land, you know that right? If you want something changed you must amend it. I am the former president of the College Republicans at the University of New Hampshire and at least my conservative friends all understood this (thought we had a slight disagrement on the war powers).
I don’t get it either. Fred is the adult in the race. Giuliani does have too much baggage and the hand raising question told me all I needed to know about Mitt and the rest. Most are spineless, wishy washy politicians. Fred basically got drafted into this event, that’s the guy I want, not the one that’s been vying for presidency since age 3
Interesting that my choice of the word “stupider” is the only point anyone is able or willing to dispute. AR in #4 thinks that the US somehow liberated the Iraqi people by disposing of Saddam Hussein (yes, you are right, your post was dumber than mine AR).
Is that all you fruit loops can come up with? What about the great and imminent threat that Saddam was to the US and the world with all those WMDs? Or perhaps the Al Qaeda link? Not even a single “if we don’t fight them over there we will be fighting them here” argument?
No, I guess not. Instead of disputing the fact that you are a fool for buying into the “Iraq is a threat” propaganda, you instead focus on the totally irrelevant. (Just like politicians and MSM).
Funny, I didn’t even mention Ron Paul, yet AR accuses me of trolling for him. Let me guess, AR stands for “Anal Retentive”?
And BTW, “stupider” IS a word. Have a look at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stupider
It is truly unfortunate when people believe that the best foreign policy is one that involves sticking your head in the sand and ignoring history.
Sure, we respect the Constitution. The neo-Nazis and truthers that the Paulestinians cozy up to? Not so much.
#31 – Posted by: Rolland on December 14, 2007 05:13 PM
Your lack of actually saying anything prevented us from retorting.
Also, how was getting rid of Saddam not liberating the Iraqi people? You do know what liberate means right? No? Should of figured.
I know you didn’t mention anything about Ron Paul, you didn’t have to. Its obvious that you support him, am I wrong? No? Didn’t think so.
Despite being hijacked, I would like to answer your question and I hope you read through the drek to find it.
It comes down to a simple issue for me. McCain-Feingold. Fred supported it so I won’t support him. To this day he still supports it.
Our first amendment was included to protect POLITICAL speech, not offensive artwork. Seems someone got that a bit backwards.
Anyway, hope it helps you understand. Though keep up the daily facts, they are fun to read.
To vote for RP, you have to be crazy. To vote for Huck, you have to have no brain activity left. Therefore, this proves that Huckababies have far more advanced cases of brain-wasting disease. As the song goes, “Huck is just another word for nothing left to lose”.
Actually so many people’s brains have been damaged by brain-eating bacteria, there is a TV show in the works just for them called “American Idiot”, loosely based on “American Idol” and “The Weakest Link”. The judges are Ahmadenijad, Putin, and Chavez. The show consists of them threatening the contestant and his county while he attempts to use self-depreciating humor or nonsensical comments to diffuse the situation. A typical exchange goes something like this: “I will destroy your country, the Great Satan”. To which the contestant replies something like “I’m not a President but I did stay at the Holiday Inn last night” or “You only hate me because of what my country has done to your country”. Anyone who displays any knowledge of history or current events is judged to be “the strongest link” and is eliminated. Towards the end, the remaining funny idiot is rewarded with “You’re going to Washington DC”.
Well, ROlland,
“What about the great and imminent threat that Saddam was to the US”
Seeing as that was never said, it appears that you are just making things up to support your desired view of the world.
Let’s see…,
“Rudolph” – a reindeer, only good at Christmas.
“Mitt” – something you play baseball with.
“Ron” – who? That’s two first names. Crazy.
“Duncan” – a yoyo company (good guy, though).
“Tommy” – a type of old, automatic gun.
“Huckabee” – a lawn toy that dogs like.
That leaves Fred Dalton Thompson. Good name, good man, good ideas, good state. I’ll start with LISTENING very closely to what he advocates.
OK, I did. I’m voting for Fred.
To try to get back on topic. . .
your Occam Razor is broken. Republicans are supposed to be the beef-eating party of our two-party system. It’s clear that we’ve been infiltrated by a Democrat conspiracy to infect us all with mad cow disease.
Too bad about the Democrats who suffer from mad tofu disease.
RP would be really good if he weren’t nucking futts!!! It was fortunate for him to have Keyes in this last debate so he would not be the nuttiest one on stage! (yes, I voted for Keyes in 2000, before he went insane)
Fred’s got the total package; I certainly hope the strategy to peak @ the right time works!
How can Ron Paul be president anyway? I mean, does the White House even have a secluded corner in the basement with broadband internet access?
Please someone tell me why Ron Paul is crazy? Again, he is the only one who is 100% conservative and the only one who believes in following the Constitution…how does that make him carzy?
Sorry “Crazy”.
To answer your question Frank, Fred is just another big government Republican who will say what it takes to get the nomination and then (assuming Hillary somehow implodes) govern pretty much like Bush has.
Fred waited a little to long to get in, but hopefully he will still get some traction going. There’s one page I wish he would take from McCain’s book: tell those Iowans they can use their corn oil for lubricant and quit trying to make the rest of us pay for their ethanol scam.
I’m curious to see what effect Thompson’s recent direct mail pieces will have.
His campaign has sent out ads that remind the recipients that Huck supports college scholarships for illegal aliens. Huck’s position is reminiscent of Hillary’s disastrous support for drivers licenses for illegals. It has cost her dearly.
This sort of thing is a deal breaker for most voters.
Fred’s campaign has also done an ad on the $50 abortion co-pays Mitt signed into law in MA. Mitt line-itemed vetoed other portions of the bill but not that portion.
I could see Fred peeling away many votes from Huck and some from Romney with those two ads.
“Please someone tell me why Ron Paul is crazy?”
Ron Paul thinks the 911 War is against 19 guys who flew planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, etc.
If that isn’t nuts, no one qualifies for the term.
It makes no difference if he loves the Constitution…many others do, too, but they aren’t qualified to be president either.
Most sensible people realize this; they are not going to vote for Ron Paul. Period.
Sorry to come late to this, but since it has come up a few times:
“Paul is the Goldwater/Reagan the Republican party has been asking for”
Ron Paul opposed Vietnam and freakin’ South Korea.
I’d be happy to argue the merits of both of those, but leaving the merits aside – when it comes to foreign policy, if Barry Goldwater is a 10 and Jimmy Carter is a 1, Ron Paul is a -20.
Ron Paul’s isolationism disqualifies him for commander-in-chief! It can no longer be credibly argued but that Iraq is a major front in the conduct of our war against Jihadistan (that borderless nation of Islamic extremists with global reach, inhabited by al-Qa’ida and other Islamists who are targeting the U.S.).
Let us pray that most Americans know that the fate of the entire Middle East (and, by extension, much of the free world) depends on the establishment of a stable government in Iraq. We are left with no reasonable choice but to confront Jihadistan on the Iraqi front. After all, if not Iraq now, then where and when? After Israel is wiped off the map and the nuke threat to us is code red? Peaceniks wake up, grow up.
Sociocrats fear Fred Thompson, and rightly so. Unlike the rest of the field of GOP candidates with questionable conservative pedigrees, Thompson can close the breach between Republicans and conservatives. None of the far left-of-center Demos will stand a chance if that happens.
That is the reason for the Thompson campaign problems… there has been a desperate, pervasive effort to derail his candidacy (you could even call it a vast left-wing conspiracy) which is unfortunately effective in combination with the brain-eating bacteria astutely identified herewith.
Truth is the cure, but advanced stages of infection, exacerbated by insidious media dezinformatsia and a traitorous majority in congress, have resulted in the likes of gullible warming gorons and Ron Paul cultees which weaken the nation as a whole. Divided we fall.
The time has come to return to the principles of America’s founding heritage, and address the nation’s challenges through the core ideals of providing for the common defense, self-governance, free markets and the rule of law. Fred Thompson is leading the way.
Wow, the Ron Paul Supporters have hijacked this.
The problem with Ron Paul is that he’s an isolationist. That discussion within the country should have ended after WWII showed that doesn’t work, and ended within the party when it nominated Eisenhower in ’52.
As for why Fred isn’t doing well, I think it has to do with the fact he and the people around him had no idea what it takes to run a presidential campaign in 2008. You have to be planning this for years in advance, lining up the people, resources and strategy to get the nomination. Fred did this on the fly and is running into people who have very good plans (even Huckabee) as to how to get the nomination. What the earlier poster said about not even being on the ballot in Delaware is a case in point.
I think the other problem is that there is a major rift in the GOP between the elites – those who think that Corporate America should have free reign to make as much money as possible on the backs of working stiffs- and the masses- Those aforementioned working stiffs who are getting screwed on a daily basis, but vote for the GOP because it is the party standing for moral values while the Democrats espouse Hollywood values.
I think that Huckabee is the “anti-Clinton”. Clinton got elected because he was socially liberal and economically conservative. Corporate America got to make a lot of money and unions continued to decline on his watch. Huckabee is the exact opposite. He’s economically liberal (refers to the Club for Growth as the “Club for Greed”) and socially conservative.
There is a difference between “laziness” and conservation of energy. Fred has a tremendous supply of energy, because he is wise in its expenditure.
Vote Fred, or accept dhimmitude.
Great comments compugnor. WOW! what passion. I’m with you. Especially in the last paragraph.
Keep up the great work and bring some of your fredhead friends to this forum.
Listen, I used to spew the same BS you all just said about isolationism and “peace niks” and fightng them over thre so we wont fight them here. All that crap I used to believe until I woke up and realized how much of it is just plain wrong. The problem was that I did not know my history. America is hated around the world, and especially in the middle east, I used to think it was just irrational hatred and that they had no real reason to want to kill us, this I realized was not the case, but again it took a bit of historical knowledge before I came around. The American government’s interventionism in the middle east is the root cause of this hatred, we have overthrown elected governments, murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, invaded countries, started a war between iran and iraq, built many bases on land considered holy to Muslims and so so much more. If we dont realize that this is the root cause of the hatred then this terrorism will never cease. Now, that being said, I am not naive to believe that once we pull out all will be alright, but we must cease our interventionism if we want our safty in the long run, because the only other way to solve the problem of terrorism is to nuke the entire middle east, and I am sorry but I am a Christian and I cannot morally justify killing millions of innocent lives. We need to start living in reality where we start to realize ther are consequences to our actions and terrorism is one of those cnsequences, other wise we are just bringing this violence on ourselves.
Also it is funny that Compuger brings up returning to our founders views, they were non-interventionists just like Paul, so yes I agree with you.
“The American government’s interventionism in the middle east is the root cause of this hatred, we have overthrown elected governments”
If I’m forgetting something, feel free to correct me, but at least in the Middle East, we helped overthrow 1 elected prime minister–Mossadegh, who was becoming sympathetic to communism in Iran the 50s (in name he wasn’t, but in practice he took to nationalizing a substantial part of the economy). Two things, 1.) while he was elected, he refused to leave when the Shah dismissed him; now Mossadegh was elected, the Shah wasn’t, but he was within the law in dismissing the Prime Minister, which the guy refused to obey, 2.) This wasn’t a high point in U.S. history, but criticism of our actions in fighting communism and winning the Cold War after the U.S.S.R. is dead and buried would be stronger if people could offer a viable alternate path we could have taken. If Paul’s solution is to sit back while the biggest threat to the free world gains control of the world’s oil supply, that’s just not the path.
“murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians”
There’s one source I can figure this comes from (again, feel free to toss back something else at me if I’m wrong) – that’s Iraq.
Iraq currently has a population of 27.5 million.
It has had a death rate of 5.26 per 1,000 (and this is at the peak of the insurgency). If you do the rough math on this – that comes out to 144,650 per year X 4 years = 578,600.
Roughly 578,600 people have died in Iraq . . . as the result of anything, by any cause whatsoever. So when someone goes around saying America killed 600,000, two million, whatever, Iraqis (all civilians, of course, and all by Americans–apparently there’s no infighting between Shiites or Sunnis in Iraq or terrorists, just a bunch of Americans causing everybody’s deaths) – what the anti-war guys are saying is that the U.S. has killed more people than have died in Iraq as the result of any cause at all, whether it be war, cancer, regular crime, old age, anything.
Iraq Body Count, a left-wing anti-war group puts the dead at 75-80,000. The last estimates I saw from the UN were ~50,000, though I’d assume it’s a little higher now. And again these aren’t tallies of death by Americans – they’re largely the work of the people Americans are trying to stop and who will run the country if America pulls out.
“started a war between iran and iraq”
?
please elaborate – how did we start this one? We were involved and engaged in it, but it’s bypassing a few more direct causes (specifically the people running both countries) to lob the blame at the United States.
“built many bases on land considered holy to Muslims”
After we were invited by them to come over there and save their ass. Really, over the past couple decades, the bulk of our actions overseas have involved saving Muslims from other people – whether it’s Kuwait, trying to aid Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. Now, you can argue back “why should we, when we’re just going to get blamed for stuff?” I’d argue that even if we have ulterior motives (come on, what did we gain out of Kosovo or Somalia, though?) saving people from genocide and toppling dictatorships, if that happens, is the justification for it and that we’ve been blamed for a while for not taking action (not putting more pressure on other dictatorships in the Middle East) as much as for taking action. We’re damned if we do. We’re damned if we don’t. The only thing that’s left is to do the right thing and, especially if you’re a libertarian, toppling a dictatorship every once in a while is in the cards.
I’ll take Fred Thompson any day over Ron Paul. Ron Paul has the support of every radical environmental organization in North America. Yep, and where does gang green get a massive amount of their support? The wonderful anti-american United Nations where one of the environmentalists holiest writs is Agenda 21. This document prescribes doing away with the United States soveignty and subdividing the land into up to eighteen environmental world parks or biological zones. This includes relocation plans for massive portions of the U.S. rural populace. No! Ron Paul is not a viable choise as his allegence to the radical greens can only mean more environmental regulation leading to the further displacement of jobs overseas and a lowering of our living standard. GO FRED GO!
I’ll take Fred Thompson any day over Ron Paul. Ron Paul has the support of every radical environmental organization in North America. Yep, and where does gang green get a massive amount of their support? The wonderful anti-american United Nations where one of the environmentalists holiest writs is Agenda 21. This document prescribes doing away with the United States soveignty and subdividing the land into up to eighteen environmental world parks or biological zones. This includes relocation plans for massive portions of the U.S. rural populace. No! Ron Paul is not a viable choice as his allegence to the radical greens can only mean more environmental regulation leading to the further displacement of jobs to overseas sites and a lowering of our living standards. GO FRED GO!
Gus, take Ron Paul. Please!
A blanket has been thrown over Fred, I see it more and more. Granted, he did himself no favors by starting late, but the walls of silence around him are more than ‘campaign mismanagement’.
The MSM’s management of the GOP’s selection process could get complicated if Americans actually heard the voices of real conservatives: like Thompson and Hunter. Make NO mistake, the Huck’s rise to prominence is “out of proportion” to his record. Something about this all smells; and I’ve sensed it for awhile now.
Think I’m wrong? Remember McCain 2000: the donks were meddling then. They’re meddling NOW; they’ve just gotten [slightly] better at not being obvious about it.
Time to wake up and take a good long look at who’s driving the bus (and who’s scooped up the prime front seats…).
And concerning the Ronulans: scrape a bit of paint off’em and more often than not you’ll find a Buchananite hiding underneath. Ron Paul’s major problem is that he suffers from ‘Farrakan’s Syndrome’ [description: during moments of public speaking the FS sufferer will suddenly go from making good sense to sounding like a complete and utter loon. Researchers are unable at this time to determine why people with above-average intelligence suffer from FS other than a complete lack of ‘common sense’.].
GO FRED!
Someone here at IMAO forgot to take out the trolls, er TRASH