Debate and Discussion

Fred Thompson announces presidential campaign
Vindibudd at 6:29PM, Sept. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
As a conservative, he looks pretty good to me. I will not vote for Romney for lots of reasons, and Rudy non-plusses me. So Thompson looks at the moment like the conservative “centrist” that I have been looking for.

Discuss.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Ronson at 6:47PM, Sept. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I don't know what Fred stands for. Seems to me that he hasn't done a heck of a lot more than just acting - including his brief stint as a senator…

Here's what I wiki'd that I had heard elsewhere…

For example, in 1982, on behalf of the Tennessee Savings and Loan League, Thompson lobbied the U.S. Congress to pass the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 which deregulated the Savings and Loan (S&L) industry. This Act was supported by President Reagan and a large congressional majority, but it turned out to be one of many contributing factors that led to the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s. Thompson received $1600 for communicating with some congressional staffers on this issue.

Hmmm…sound judgement there. huh!?

Thompson also did some lobbying for free. For example, when Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in 1991, Thompson made a telephone call to John H. Sununu who was then White House Chief of Staff, in order to advocate (as Thompson described) “restoration of the democratically elected government of the Republic of Haiti.” Eventually, “Aristide was restored to power in 1994 by U.S. troops under President Clinton.”

My knowledge of Haitian politics is woefully inadequate. Any opinions on this?

Billing records show that Thompson, who describes his position as pro-life, was paid for about 20 hours of work in 1991 and 1992 on behalf of a family planning group trying to ease a departmental regulation on abortion counseling in federally-funded clinics. President George H.W. Bush eased the departmental regulation when he sent a memo to Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan stating that the regulation should allow referrals of women to facilities that perform abortion, but not to facilities whose principal business is providing abortions. With this easing of the regulation, Congress failed by 12 votes to override a veto by Bush of legislation that would have completely overturned the regulation.

I know the left is making hay from this, but it isn't an outright pro-choice stance, so the republicans should be very relieved that he doesn't completely think women should be allowed to make their own decisions.

After leaving the Senate in 2003, Thompson's only lobbying work was for London-based Equitas Ltd, which is a reinsurance company. He was paid $760,000 from 2004 to 2006 in order to help prevent legislation that Equitas said unfairly singled them out for unfavorable treatment regarding asbestos claims. Thompson spokesman Mark Corrallo said that Thompson was proud to have been a lobbyist and believed in Equitas's cause.

Well, any lobbyist for a foreign insurance company sounds like the type of good ol' boy any good Republican would want to dance with!
____

Of all the republicans running, he seems less vomit inducing, and is merely disappointing. But I am certainly not the person he need to lie to in order to convince to vote for him.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Vindibudd at 7:00PM, Sept. 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
I don't know what Fred stands for. Seems to me that he hasn't done a heck of a lot more than just acting - including his brief stint as a senator…

He has more experience than your two front-runners combined.

Ronson
Here's what I wiki'd that I had heard elsewhere…

…Hmmm…sound judgement there. huh!?

Wow, that's a bit of Cherry-picking if ever there was any. A majority of congress there, yeah I am sure that had zero Democrats in it.

Ronson
My knowledge of Haitian politics is woefully inadequate. Any opinions on this?

No. But apparently Clinton agreed with him, so oh well.

Ronson
I know the left is making hay from this, but it isn't an outright pro-choice stance, so the republicans should be very relieved that he doesn't completely think women should be allowed to make their own decisions.

Nice spin, let me spin it the other way, “he doesn't completely think women should be allowed to murder unborn children.”

Ronson
Well, any lobbyist for a foreign insurance company sounds like the type of good ol' boy any good Republican would want to dance with!

Because there's nothing like Harry Reid's kids being lobbyists to completely destroy all ethics attached to the office. You can do better than this Ronson.

Ronson
Of all the republicans running, he seems less vomit inducing, and is merely disappointing. But I am certainly not the person he need to lie to in order to convince to vote for him.

Where has he lied?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 4:16AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
I really don't like the whole pickup truck angle he's trying to work.

But I love Law & Order! What do I DOOOOOOOOO?!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Ronson at 4:49AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I honestly don't understand the appeal of Fred Thompson, but don't have any really strong opinions against him other than the fact that he's towing the Republican party line, which is a mixture of denial, insanity and stupidity…in my opinion, of course.

Vindibudd, you have dismissed my - very brief and quick - investigation. What do YOU know about him that makes you think he'd be a good president?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
TnTComic at 4:53AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Ronson
I honestly don't understand the appeal of Fred Thompson

Law & Order man!

Republicans: the party of actors.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 7:38AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
Ronson
I honestly don't understand the appeal of Fred Thompson

Law & Order man!

Republicans: the party of actors.

Wow, you say that like it is a bad thing. The Democrats have been talking about helping the poor for 50 years but the poor never get better. I guess we can call them the party of liars.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 7:46AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
I honestly don't understand the appeal of Fred Thompson, but don't have any really strong opinions against him other than the fact that he's towing the Republican party line, which is a mixture of denial, insanity and stupidity…in my opinion, of course.

Vindibudd, you have dismissed my - very brief and quick - investigation. What do YOU know about him that makes you think he'd be a good president?

At this point, it is more an issue of what he isn't. He isn't a flip-flopping used to be gay rights used to be abortion rights former governor of the peoples' republic of massachusetts who happens to be part of a cult.

He also isn't a pro-choice, thrice married, stuttering lisping I'm Only Popular Because Terrorists Hit My City Psuedo Republican.

He also isn't an America should cut itself off from the rest of the world U.S. Congressman parading around like an actual conservative.

He also isn't a pro-life one issue battering ram like one former Arkansas governor.

He also isn't an appeasing barely coherent former POW who thinks that the conservatives are the problem with the party.


So there are not a whole lot of things that I know he is for, but rather he does not have any of my problems with the other candidates. That alone is enough for me to be open to hearing what he has to say.

And actually, if there was a Democrat that didn't “tow the Democratic party line, which is a mixture of denial, insanity and stupidity” I would be open to that person as well.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 8:02AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
TnTComic
Ronson
I honestly don't understand the appeal of Fred Thompson

Law & Order man!

Republicans: the party of actors.

Wow, you say that like it is a bad thing. The Democrats have been talking about helping the poor for 50 years but the poor never get better. I guess we can call them the party of liars.

Kind of like acting like you're opposed to homosexual lifestyles and huntin' fer action in a public restroom.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
bobhhh at 8:05AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Vindibudd
He also isn't a pro-choice, thrice married, stuttering lisping I'm Only Popular Because Terrorists Hit My City Psuedo Republican.

Thank you!!!! I love it when we agree Vindi!!! :P

As a former New Yorker (I moved away to peel the target off my back) I can tell you what a mess Rudy was. By the time 911 happenned everybody hated him. When the planes hit, he managed to wrap himself in the tragedy as if he grabbed a shovel and started digging up bodies at ground zero. America's mayor…puhleeeez!

All he did was get soot on his suit. Being a target does not make you a hero.

Firemen and rescue workers are the real heroes.

…oops, off topic….um sorry.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
TnTComic at 8:50AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
He can be America's mayor, just not its president.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 10:52AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
Kind of like acting like you're opposed to homosexual lifestyles and huntin' fer action in a public restroom.

Or like running gay prostitution rings out of your own home. Seriously, I can do this all day.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
bobhhh at 11:03AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Personally I think he is a bit chicken to have hemmed and hawed so long. Was he afraid to enter the race earlier or was he hoping to let the other politicians duke it out so he had less compettition? I mean how should you feel about a guy who won't enter a race until he has held a bazillion fact finding comittees to ensure he won't lose?

To me its devious at best and at worst shows a lack of cajones.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Vindibudd at 11:17AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
bobhhh
Personally I think he is a bit chicken to have hemmed and hawed so long. Was he afraid to enter the race earlier or was he hoping to let the other politicians duke it out so he had less compettition? I mean how should you feel about a guy who won't enter a race until he has held a bazillion fact finding comittees to ensure he won't lose?

To me its devious at best and at worst shows a lack of cajones.

I don't see why people have to be running for president more than a year from the general election. I view it as having self control to stay out until Labor Day the year before. Thompson clearly has better things to do than be a professional campaigner.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
warren at 12:12PM, Sept. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 110
joined: 1-9-2007
Actually, it's smart strategically to wait out some opponents. Especially in a crowded field with a limitied amount of dollars to go around. I won't say too much about committees “to see which way the wind blows” since both sides are clearly guilty of that sort of thing.
Warren

On the Duck:
Title -updating! ~30 strips!
PAC -New! >10 strips.

Others:
Spare Change -updating! ~2000 strips!
Mass Production -hiatus. ~300 strips.

This guy does Piss Mario, Stick, and Filler!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:48PM
Ronson at 6:50PM, Sept. 6, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
There's also the “Law and Order” thing. As soon as he announces - supposedly - his episodes won't be aired because of equal time rules. I believe TNT is going to try and test that to see if it's a problem, but it is an income generator for him (and his hollywood peers, of course) that gets cut off when he announces.

I agree that anything more than a year is unneccessary, as I have explained in the primary thing.

The fact that you admit that you like him because he isn't as obviously creepy as the other choices is … interesting, Vindi.

Especially since the thread started with:
So Thompson looks at the moment like the conservative “centrist” that I have been looking for.

Which you now mean:

At this point, it is more an issue of what he isn't.

You're definition, then, of centrist is to not be any other Republican candidate besides Fred Thompson.
____

Some other comments…

Because of the insistence of pointing out the missteps of Democrats to excuse the missteps and crimes of Republicans, Let's talk about this harping point of yours:

Vindibudd
Or like running gay prostitution rings out of your own home. Seriously, I can do this all day.

This is a referral to Barney Frank, which we can all learn about from Wiki:
In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment when he was not at home. Frank had dismissed Gobie earlier that year and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee after learning of Gobie's activities. After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity.

It isn't entirely clear here whether or not Frank was out or not when he befriended the escort. Frank outed himself in 1987, and this happened in 1990 and the escort had been kicked out a few months earlier in that year. It could be because of the demonization of homosexuality (by many right wing nutjobs) that Frank turned to this escort service for the confidentiality of it. But maybe not. Either way, it is certainly on par with participating in non-gay prostitution (a la Vitter), which is criminal.

Noticeably, Frank was the one who turned himself in. This could have just been a face saving maneuver offered him by a friendly congress. It certainly stands in contrast to all the latest scandals where exposing the crime was followed by vehement denials right up until jailtime. But that could just be a sign of the times.

So, what of it? A crime that occurred more than a decade or so ago is being compared as equal to the crimes of Republicans in just the last year?



Oh, the democrats had that Jefferson guy from Louisiana with the money in his refrigerator…a case that had to be dismissed because of an inept Republican justice department investigation. I wish that congress could boot him out, and I hope the people of Louisiana do so come election day.

The thing is that this crap doesn't really mean anything to me either. Hookers, drugs and whatever is a part of the power system and while I don't condone it, I'd prefer to judge these folks on their record.

Which is why the Randy “Duke” Cunningham thing - which involves prostitutes only tangentially - is incredible. It has been called the biggest scandal in DC's history, because the money that was being tossed around and the fact that it involved defense contracts during wartime.

Fortunately, thanks to a bj in the White House, a fairly simple-minded Representative from Massachusetts and the guy with money in his fridge who was let go because of a Republican Justice Department screw-up, the people who are all gushy over the Republicans have something they can equat to the biggest scandal in history.

Whoopie, all you have done, Vindibudd, is prove that Republicans are as worthless as the Democrats you need to single out for poor judgement from decades ago. I heard that Lyndon Johnson picked dogs up by the ears, why didn't you mention that as well?

One would think that someone who cheerleads so loudly for the “trickle down” crowd and the corporatists that lead the Republican party would be able to find a better candidate than the one who “isn't” things you dislike.

____

And actually, if there was a Democrat that didn't “tow the Democratic party line, which is a mixture of denial, insanity and stupidity” I would be open to that person as well.

Yeah, I don't like Hillary either. You're right, she IS too republican for my tastes.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
SpANG at 8:23AM, Sept. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
He has more experience than your two front-runners combined.

HAha! Yeah, that's what's scary about him. More time in the political machine = more corruption.

Plus, he's in bed with the Bush family. That's enough for me to avoid him like the plague.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
Vindibudd at 10:27AM, Sept. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
The fact that you admit that you like him because he isn't as obviously creepy as the other choices is … interesting, Vindi.

Did I say creepy? Whether or not they are creepy, they are all inadequate for my opinion of what a president should be.

Ronson
Especially since the thread started with:
So Thompson looks at the moment like the conservative “centrist” that I have been looking for.

Which you now mean:

At this point, it is more an issue of what he isn't.

You're definition, then, of centrist is to not be any other Republican candidate besides Fred Thompson.

No, my definition of “centrist” in this narrow instance is someone who is not as polarizing as the candidates currently out there besides Thompson. Thompson could win the general election based upon his positions which are built on a foundation of conservative philosophy. That is my point. I don't want to vote for someone I know is going to automatically lose nor someone who I believe is at odds with my social values. And in the case of Romney, I would be remiss if I did not let it be known that I would never vote for a Mormon which has a great amount to do with religious and doctrinal issues that are particular to my faith and would not apply to a lot of other people.


Ronson
Because of the insistence of pointing out the missteps of Democrats to excuse the missteps and crimes of Republicans, Let's talk about this harping point of yours:

Your side started the mudslinging here.

Ronson
So, what of it? A crime that occurred more than a decade or so ago is being compared as equal to the crimes of Republicans in just the last year?

I am not comparing crimes, I am pointing out that your side isn't nearly as perfect as you would have me believe. By the way, there is no statute of limitations on murder, so it really doesn't matter how long ago Ted Kennedy let Mary Jo drown in a car that he drove off a bridge.

Ronson
Oh, the democrats had that Jefferson guy from Louisiana with the money in his refrigerator…a case that had to be dismissed because of an inept Republican justice department investigation. I wish that congress could boot him out, and I hope the people of Louisiana do so come election day.

Yeah.

Ronson
The thing is that this crap doesn't really mean anything to me either. Hookers, drugs and whatever is a part of the power system and while I don't condone it, I'd prefer to judge these folks on their record.

Then stop bringing up every fault you can of one side.

Ronson
Which is why the Randy “Duke” Cunningham thing - which involves prostitutes only tangentially - is incredible. It has been called the biggest scandal in DC's history, because the money that was being tossed around and the fact that it involved defense contracts during wartime.

Okay.

Ronson
Fortunately, thanks to a bj in the White House,

Okay enough of this garbage.

Don't take the following personally.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE HE GOT A BLOW JOB IN THE OVAL OFFICE. IT'S BECAUSE HE LIED UNDER OATH ABOUT HAVING AN AFFAIR IN THE COURSE OF AN INVESTIGATION RELATED TO ACCUSATIONS THAT HE WAS A SEXUAL BATTERER.

Are you NOT aware that BEHAVIOR THAT IS SIMILAR TO the CHARGE CURRENTLY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS RELEVANT?

Unlike BUSH who you CONSTANTLY SCREAM IS A LIAR, CLINTON ACTUALLY LEGALLY LIED to DENY DUE PROCESS to AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

THAT'S WHAT PISSED OFF ALL THE REPUBLICANS.

So now you are welcome to delude yourself about a “bj” or you can look at the fact that the president lied under oath to discredit a woman who accused him of raping her. But hell, rape is okay if you are a DEMOCRAT isn't it? It is just a LITTLE more complicated than “The president was impeached for getting a bj in the White House.”


Ronson
Whoopie, all you have done, Vindibudd, is prove that Republicans are as worthless as the Democrats you need to single out for poor judgement from decades ago. I heard that Lyndon Johnson picked dogs up by the ears, why didn't you mention that as well?

Poor behavior is poor behavior no matter when it happens and is ESPECIALLY relevant when those that engaged in the poor behavior ARE STILL IN OFFICE, I.E. Barney Frank, or William Jefferson.

Ronson
One would think that someone who cheerleads so loudly for the “trickle down” crowd and the corporatists that lead the Republican party would be able to find a better candidate than the one who “isn't” things you dislike.

I'm sorry that I didn't list every single platform issue that I like about Thompson. I'm sure you can google it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Ronson at 5:34AM, Sept. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
No, my definition of “centrist” in this narrow instance is someone who is not as polarizing as the candidates currently out there besides Thompson. Thompson could win the general election based upon his positions which are built on a foundation of conservative philosophy.

Which are? This was the initial question, what makes you believe Thompson is a good candidate? Are you just basing it on a “vibe”?

I am not comparing crimes, I am pointing out that your side isn't nearly as perfect as you would have me believe.

Actually, you may not realize what you do every time a republican failing is aired. I'll explain it to you: You never address whether you even acknowledge it's a failing, and then you reach for a comparision to it on the other side. You're comparisons are old and dusty, and have usually been dealt with - obviously not to your satisfaction.

By the way, there is no statute of limitations on murder, so it really doesn't matter how long ago Ted Kennedy let Mary Jo drown in a car that he drove off a bridge.

Like that one. If you have evidence to present that could get Ted Kennedy arrested, I demand you present it. If you just don't like the event because it “smells” fishy, I can't disagree. But that isn't the sams as a conviction.

Then stop bringing up every fault you can of one side.

Well, I think I try to bring up relevant faults. Since this was about Thompson, I made a quick Thompson evaluation. I think you're critique of my evaluation is valid, though I don't think you've looked into any of the details much either…which is why we are up to three reasons you support him (1. He's a centrist 2. He isn't the other guys 3. He feels like the right type of conservative) but no actual instances where you are in harmony with his stated platform.

Vindibudd
Ronson
Fortunately, thanks to a bj in the White House,

Okay enough of this garbage.

Don't take the following personally.

Heh. I was worried this would set you off. I'll comment as this old story gets told again, and then give my comments afterwords.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE HE GOT A BLOW JOB IN THE OVAL OFFICE. IT'S BECAUSE HE LIED UNDER OATH ABOUT HAVING AN AFFAIR IN THE COURSE OF AN INVESTIGATION RELATED TO ACCUSATIONS THAT HE WAS A SEXUAL BATTERER.

See now, that's not objective at all. The investigation began to prove that the Clintons were corrupt in their dealings with Whitewater, but it didn't pan out. Then it spread to Bill Clinton's sexual escapades - including more than a few accusations - but they couldn't be proven.

Being accused doesn't make you guilty. I personally think that arresting someone for toe tapping and touching a stall door - because those are beginning motions in a potential sex act for people who know the code - is ridiculously draconian, for example.

Are you NOT aware that BEHAVIOR THAT IS SIMILAR TO the CHARGE CURRENTLY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS RELEVANT?

Are you saying that if they could prove that Clinton got BJs they could prove he was a sexual batterer? If so, why didn't they?

Unlike BUSH who you CONSTANTLY SCREAM IS A LIAR, CLINTON ACTUALLY LEGALLY LIED to DENY DUE PROCESS to AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

I actually agree that both Bush and Clinton are liars. Clinton's evasion is that he didn't consider oral sex to be sex, so he dodged the “sexual relations” question.

I do think that he should have resigned. I think for the prestige of the office, and because he put himself in a compromising position that could have led to serioud damage. But I also know that after millions of dollars the only thing they could stick to Clinton was the he lied about his relationship with Lewinsky, and even that was not iron clad.

THAT'S WHAT PISSED OFF ALL THE REPUBLICANS.

No it isn't. I'm sorry, it isn't. Some republicans, certainly.

If it were, you'd be screaming about Bush, who is consistently evading testimony on much more serious offenses (For the 9-11 investigation he would only speak with Cheney, not under oath and with no record), has “lost” evidence for an ongoing investigation (a million emails, and do you care?) and has extended “Executive Privilege” beyond any previous usage in history.

But republicans dismiss this as partisan politics, as if the destruction and refusal to disclose evidence is equal to the lack of evidence.

Republicans are creating what their own “definition of ‘is’ is” by doing this.

So now you are welcome to delude yourself about a “bj” or you can look at the fact that the president lied under oath to discredit a woman who accused him of raping her. But hell, rape is okay if you are a DEMOCRAT isn't it? It is just a LITTLE more complicated than “The president was impeached for getting a bj in the White House.”

Nope. It isn't.

The only lie to the jury that was exposed was that Clinton did have some sort of relations with Lewinsky.

The woman accusing him of rape did not have any evidence and Clinton was not found guilty. Now, I know you and I differ on this, but I do believe you have to prove something in court before you can go around calling people murderers and rapists and pimps.

I know that rape is very hard to prove. I don't have a solution to this, because the alternative is that you allow someone accused of rape to automatically be found guilty of it, regardless of evidence. And it isn't like no one has ever lied about someone raping them. So you can't even say that for someone to accuse someone there HAS TO BE truth to it. There doesn't.

I know that both sides of the political arena are guilty of this. I think that the Larry Craig thing is really overblown and that admission of guilt in this circumstance is not proof of guilt.


Poor behavior is poor behavior no matter when it happens and is ESPECIALLY relevant when those that engaged in the poor behavior ARE STILL IN OFFICE, I.E. Barney Frank, or William Jefferson.

I agree, though those two have been dealt with. You don't like the results of the Frank investigation or the Clinton investigation or the Kennedy investigation, so you continue to call them pimps, rapists and muderers.

On the other hand, you're happy to see investigations blocked against the White House's possible criminal activity. That's hypocritical, but I know you and many others don't see it that way.

I'd like to see Vitter examined by the ethics board because he admits to the crime of solicitation. I'd certainly like to see the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals find as many corrupt politicians on whatever side and get rid of them as well.


Vindibudd
I'm sorry that I didn't list every single platform issue that I like about Thompson. I'm sure you can google it.

I am sure I cannot google what platform issues you like about Thompson. You are not that important a public personality that someone has collected a list of things you like about Thompson's platform. I'm sorry to break that to you. If it makes you feel better, I think I'm even lower on the list of public personalities.

Let's try, just in case:



Nope, nuthin'

So, what do YOU like about Thompson's platform?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:29AM, Sept. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
The googling Vindibudd's faborites is class a snark. A laugh point for you. What's interesting about our two party system is that good ideas can get shut down because the “other side” thought of it, so it seems our Senatorial classes can get away with not being fully investigated because the “team” will block it.

Thompson has been keeping his cards close to his chest regarding platform. But what's funny is that Thompson is somehow “genuine” while Rommy is just saying whatever he thinks will get him elected. Without an examination of their voting records, you can't tell.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Ronson at 10:29AM, Sept. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
That's true. Though I will also agree with people who understand that senatorial voting records can be very deceiving. The way bills are all packed together almost always mean there's a mish mosh of good and bad things that are being voted into law a lot of the time.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
mapaghimagsik at 11:06AM, Sept. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Ronson
That's true. Though I will also agree with people who understand that senatorial voting records can be very deceiving. The way bills are all packed together almost always mean there's a mish mosh of good and bad things that are being voted into law a lot of the time.

That statement is a positively wonky statement – which is a good thing, from those of us who are wonks.

So much goes into trying to metric a candidate that its easy to see why people throw their hands up in the air in exasperation and just decide to vote for whoever seems the “best”

The factors I try to look at are the candidates voting record, what the candidate says, what groups endorse the candidate *and* what groups are substantial doners, since I don't think doners just hand out money just for the ‘cuddly factor’

I don't have a candidate picked yet, since I can see positive things in all the candidates. My druthers go toward Edwards and Kucinich at this point. But what can I say, I like lost causes :D

I think it was a big setback for our electoral system when the idea of electability got stuck into the consciousness of America. Elections are now like Vegas, betting on a winner, rather than really voting what you think is right.

I split the middle, trying to push for what I want at the primaries, and unless I think the other guy is better, I go party line

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 11:37AM, Sept. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Okay Ronson, you asked for it. From OnTheIssues.org

Fred Thompson on Abortion
* Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000) Agreed
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Budget & Economy
* Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000) Agreed
* Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997) Agreed
* Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Civil Rights
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002) Agreed
* Voted NO on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001) Agreed
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000) Agreed
* Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998) Agreed
* Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997) Agreed
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996) Agreed
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996) Agreed
* Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995) Disagree
* Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995) Disagree

Fred Thompson on Corporations
* Commerce clause does not mean Feds can regulate everything. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Crime
* Impose truth in sentencing for violent crime. (Nov 1994) Agreed
* Voted NO on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996) Agreed
* Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996) Agreed
* Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995) Agreed
* Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Drugs
* Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999) Disagree
* Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Education
* Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001) Neutral
* Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001) Neutral
* Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001) Agreed
* Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000) Agreed
* Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998) Agreed
* Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997) Agreed
* Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Energy & Oil
* Solar system is warming, not earth. (Apr 2007) Neutral
* Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002) Agreed
* Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002) Agreed
* Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000) Agreed
* Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999) Disagree
* Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Environment
* Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001) Agreed
* Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998) Agreed
* Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Families & Children
* Voted YES on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Foreign Policy
* Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May 2002) Agreed
* Voted NO on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000) Disagree
* Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999) Disagree
* Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998) Agreed
* Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998) Agreed
* Voted NO on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998) Agreed
* Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Free Trade
* Market does more for freedom & prosperity than planners. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Protectionist trade policies are defensive & defeatist. (May 2007) Agreed
* Markets do more for freedom than any central planner. (May 2007) Agreed
* Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002) Agreed
* Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001) Agreed
* Voted NO on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001) Agreed
* Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000) Agreed
* Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000) Agreed
* Voted YES on renewing ‘fast track’ presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997) Agreed
* Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (May 1995) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Government Reform
* Passionate supporter of states rights. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Term limits counter professionalization of politics. (May 2007) Disagree
* Voted YES on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002) Disagree
* Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002) Agreed
* Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001) Agreed
* Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999) Disagree
* Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997) Disagree
* Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996) Disagree
* Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Gun Control
* Allowing concealed carry could have limited VA Tech massacre. (Apr 2007) Agreed
* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999) Agreed
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999) Disagree
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Health Care
* Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002) Agreed
* Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001) Agreed
* Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001) Disagree
* Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000) Disagree
* Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999) Disagree
* Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998) Agreed
* Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997) Agreed
* Voted NO on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Homeland Security
* Europe mothballs its fleet, when all should build military. (Apr 2007) Agreed
* Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999) Agreed
* Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998) Agreed
* Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997) Agreed
* Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997) Agreed
* Voted YES on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty. (Jun 1996) Agreed
* Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (Sep 1995) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Immigration
* Opposes amnesty in any form. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Nation loses sovereignty if it cannot secure its own borders. (Apr 2007) Agreed
* Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998) Agreed
* Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998) Agreed
* Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Jobs
* Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001) Agreed
* Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997) Agreed
* Voted YES on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Principles & Values
* Reveals he suffers from cancer, but it won't affect campaign. (Jun 2007) N/A
* Religious affiliation: Protestant. (Nov 2000) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Social Security
* Social Security & Medicare are generational wealth transfers. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999) Disagree/Agree
* Voted YES on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998) Agreed
* Voted YES on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998) Agreed
* Voted YES on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Tax Reform
* Progressive tax redistributes wealth without helping economy. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Taxes burden production; keep rates as low as possible. (May 2007) Agreed
* Tax cuts stimulate the economy. (Apr 2007) Agreed
* Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001) Agreed
* Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001) Disagree
* Voted YES on eliminating the ‘marriage penalty’. (Jul 2000) Agreed
* Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998) Agreed

Fred Thompson on Technology
* Voted YES on Internet sales tax moratorium. (Oct 1998) Agreed
* Voted YES on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996) Agreed

Fred Thompson on War & Peace
* I would do essentially what the president's doing in Iraq. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Take any chance to not get run out of Iraq. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Internationalizing war effort will not win the war. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* President must decide on war based on unclear evidence. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Prophets of doom are wrong–we can't cut-and-run. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Goal of Iraqi enemies is to demoralize us. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Serious & painful international sanctions on nuclear Iran. (Jun 2007) Agreed
* Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002) Agreed
* Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999) Agreed
* Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999) Agreed
* Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995) Agreed
* Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001) Agreed
* Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995) Neutral

Fred Thompson on Welfare & Poverty
* Voted YES on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996) Agreed
* Voted NO on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (Jul 1996) Agreed
* Voted YES on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996) Agreed
* Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995) Agreed

So this means that I agree with Fred Thompson 79% of the time. Considering he has not flip-flopped like say Romney, then that makes it easier for me to take the man at his word.

Thompson does not have an official platform, when I was asking you to google it, I was asking you to google his positions. Apparently I can get his positions but you fail at research instead googling “vindibudd” with “fred thompson” to make some weird abstract irrelevant point.

You can also go here: http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx

I agree with everything in that essay.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 12:04PM, Sept. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
Actually, you may not realize what you do every time a republican failing is aired. I'll explain it to you: You never address whether you even acknowledge it's a failing, and then you reach for a comparision to it on the other side. You're comparisons are old and dusty, and have usually been dealt with - obviously not to your satisfaction.

If I don't address it then likely I don't have cause to argue against it. You want me to argue with you about Cunningham? You want me to argue with you about Abramoff? Sorry.


Ronson
If it were, you'd be screaming about Bush, who is consistently evading testimony on much more serious offenses (For the 9-11 investigation he would only speak with Cheney, not under oath and with no record), has “lost” evidence for an ongoing investigation (a million emails, and do you care?) and has extended “Executive Privilege” beyond any previous usage in history.

Not just apples and oranges, we are talking apples and steak.

Ronson
But republicans dismiss this as partisan politics, as if the destruction and refusal to disclose evidence is equal to the lack of evidence.

There is such a thing as seperation of powers. Apparently the Democrats do not understand this concept. The president does not have to come and testify before congress on every little thing that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi think about.

Ronson
Republicans are creating what their own “definition of ‘is’ is” by doing this.

No, they are doing their job and the Democrats are throwing things against the wall to get something to stick.

Ronson
Nope. It isn't.

Yes. It is.


Ronson
Now, I know you and I differ on this, but I do believe you have to prove something in court before you can go around calling people murderers and rapists and pimps.

Unless they are Republican presidents that we don't like.

Ronson
I know that rape is very hard to prove. I don't have a solution to this, because the alternative is that you allow someone accused of rape to automatically be found guilty of it, regardless of evidence. And it isn't like no one has ever lied about someone raping them. So you can't even say that for someone to accuse someone there HAS TO BE truth to it. There doesn't.

I never said there was truth to it or not, I said that there was an accusation and then made a sarcastic remark about Democrats and their double standard when it comes to accusations of sex crimes. Anita Hill ring a bell?

Ronson
I know that both sides of the political arena are guilty of this. I think that the Larry Craig thing is really overblown and that admission of guilt in this circumstance is not proof of guilt.

Now we have some progress.


Poor behavior is poor behavior no matter when it happens and is ESPECIALLY relevant when those that engaged in the poor behavior ARE STILL IN OFFICE, I.E. Barney Frank, or William Jefferson.

Ronson
I agree, though those two have been dealt with. You don't like the results of the Frank investigation or the Clinton investigation or the Kennedy investigation, so you continue to call them pimps, rapists and muderers.

Actually I inferred it, I didn't outright say it. In fact, the word “pimp” never even entered my mind until you typed it here. And murder is not exactly what I would tag Kennedy with either, it could be manslaughter. So don't put words in my mouth.

Ronson
On the other hand, you're happy to see investigations blocked against the White House's possible criminal activity. That's hypocritical, but I know you and many others don't see it that way.

You have a different opinion than most people of what “possible” criminal activity is.


last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
bobhhh at 12:47PM, Sept. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Here's an unscientific, totally biased opinion about Freddy.

I just don't like him. Where oh where is Robert DeNiro when we need him(Cape Fear reference)?

Bob

ps Heh, heh…jes kiddin ;)


My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
TnTComic at 4:30PM, Sept. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
I like him in Law & Order.

Thus, I can't vote for him. How would he make more Law & Order?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
skoolmunkee at 5:46PM, Sept. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 7,058
joined: 1-2-2006
You guys are havin' such a nice back and forth I hate to interrupt, but I have to say:

I would vote for him if Sam Waterston were his vice president.

(I don't like him in Law and Order as much as I liked Diane Wiest though.)
  IT'S OLD BATMAN
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:40PM
Ronson at 5:01AM, Sept. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
Ronson
I agree, though those two have been dealt with. You don't like the results of the Frank investigation or the Clinton investigation or the Kennedy investigation, so you continue to call them pimps, rapists and muderers.
Actually I inferred it, I didn't outright say it. In fact, the word “pimp” never even entered my mind until you typed it here. And murder is not exactly what I would tag Kennedy with either, it could be manslaughter. So don't put words in my mouth.

I guess I misunderstood. When you said:

By the way, there is no statute of limitations on murder, so it really doesn't matter how long ago Ted Kennedy let Mary Jo drown in a car that he drove off a bridge.

I assumed you were implying Kennedy murdered someone. I don't know how I could make a mistake like that.

The rest of the post was pretty much just you explaining why repulbicans are above investigation and democrats are not. Whatever. We're going to have to move on.

BUT…

I do appreciate the long list of issues you agree and disagree with Mr. Thompson on. First of all, it has taught me a lot about him. One thing that is absolutely certain is that Thompson is NOT A CENTRIST. Seriously, where on that list is he not a hard line conservative?

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I think that we can at least dismiss this “centrist” claim.

The other thing that we learn is that - if you've captured his record accurately (and I have no reason to think you haven't) - he is very consistent. It is very possible that he has convictions and principals. I may oppose these convictions and principles, but at least he isn't shifting them to prevent being pinned to them.

I do hope to hear more from him on ideology and to see him debate the other Republicans. If he sticks with his convictions, he does have a good chance to win the nomination, I think.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Vindibudd at 11:49AM, Sept. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
I do appreciate the long list of issues you agree and disagree with Mr. Thompson on. First of all, it has taught me a lot about him. One thing that is absolutely certain is that Thompson is NOT A CENTRIST. Seriously, where on that list is he not a hard line conservative?

I think I mentioned that I was using very narrow methods of defining the word “centrist.” Of course you are not going to think he is a centrist, but the word does not have a set in stone definition. When I say he is a centrist, I am comparing him to someone like Alan Keyes from previous primaries.

Ronson
Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I think that we can at least dismiss this “centrist” claim.

No, I can call him a centrist all day long and you can just disagree with me.

Ronson
The other thing that we learn is that - if you've captured his record accurately (and I have no reason to think you haven't) - he is very consistent. It is very possible that he has convictions and principals. I may oppose these convictions and principles, but at least he isn't shifting them to prevent being pinned to them.

This is why I like him. This can't be said for the other allegedly viable candidates.

Ronson
I do hope to hear more from him on ideology and to see him debate the other Republicans. If he sticks with his convictions, he does have a good chance to win the nomination, I think.

Of course he has a good chance. And if he got the nomination, he would likely obliterate any of the Democrats. Do you really seriously think Hillary, Edwards, or Obama are electable?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Ronson at 2:29PM, Sept. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I believe if there is a fair election - though I have some serious doubts about that given the past two voter disenfranchisement campaigns and because California might split it's electorate - then I think the people will vote for whoever they think is going to end this tragic war.

But no, I do believe that fair elections are behind us. I just hope the person appointed president surprises his or her master and does some good at least.

And “centrist” isn't that hard to define. It means someone who pulls occasionally to the right and occasionally to the left. Admittedly, Thompson isn't as right wing as Keyes, but he's certainly no where near center.

He's a right wing politician, and if that's what you like, that's what you like.

Of course, it's is a fairly common ploy for either side of the debate to redefine their people with the labels most people find comforting. “Moderates” and “Centrist” makes them sound like they have all of America in mind when making decisions. As we've learned from the Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr. presidency, labelling is everything and substance is nothing.

(Yeah, I know I left Bush Sr. out. He made some very tough decisions that alienated him from his party. Good for him. I didn't like much of what he did, but he seemed to have some principals as well.)
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved