"I am Cobra Commander, and I approved this message. Hail Cobraaaaa!"
Posted on 10/15/2007 10:56:36 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
"I am Cobra Commander, and I approved this message. Hail Cobraaaaa!"
I think the Wildcat chewed your backside pretty good in his rebuttal in post #200, so I don’t have to add much more to his comments.
As for my sounding ‘shrill as a Hillary supporter’, you’ve either been taking directions from another insane Freeper who will go unmentioned here, who started that nonsense earlier this week, or it’s just instinctive for the FredHeads who see anyone opposed to their LazyBoy Recliner (c) as being ‘shrill like Hillary’. Anyone who knows me, knows that I deal not in shrillness, but in hard cold facts, and the facts about Thompson’s performance in the Senate are not his friends, and sooner or later you and your fellow Frednatics will have to face it and deal with it. You can bet that if Fred is the nominee, the Democrats will pulverize him with his voting record. He’s got lots of problems there.
So take a hint from Finley Peter Dunne, who said ‘politics ain’t beanbag’ and if you, or Fred can’t handle the heat, you can always follow Harry Truman’s advice about that.
Enjoy your evening.
Here’s a sincere question — does regulating what can appear on the public airwaves = regulating speech?
I’m conflicted about this myself, because it seems as if anything deemed “public” becomes a space where no one can post/speak/do anything (i.e., restrictions based on the lowest common denominator)...
It takes a lot of time, but I would advise you to go to Thomas.gov and actually examine a candidate’s entire voting record, rather than rely on lists compiled by third parties. I’ve done that for both Thompson and Hunter (for Hunter, only back to the 90s because Thomas.gov doesn’t go back any further at this point).
I can tell you that in some of the areas you’ve mentioned (specifically, non-defense-spending and the minimum wage, Thompson’s record far outshines Hunter’s). Thompson also repeatedly voted against allowing union leaders to make political donations without their members’ consent. He was also one of the senate leaders in fighting against both public welfare entitlements and corporate welfare. That’s just off the top of my head.
What it comes down to is that any candidate with many years of votes on record can be cherry-picked and thus, distorted. As a very glaring example, I could compile a list on Duncan Hunter and portray him as anti-Iraq War — simply by including his amendment to pull the troops out and omitting the fact that he did that as a political gambit (and omitting a huge list of his war-support activities). That would be ridiculous, of course. But it’s no more ridiculous than claiming that Thompson is pro-spending and -welfare (corporate or otherwise) — as I said, he was one of the leaders in fighting spending, entitlements and corporate welfare.
I’m not expecting you to take my word for it — if you’re truly interested, go directly to the source and check it out for yourself.
Thompson has always been pro-citizen-legislator (vs. career politician). One of his first acts in the senate was to introduce a Constitutional amendment to term-limit congress.
Thompson *did not* vote for amnesty. He voted for a tough-on-illegal-immigration law passed in 1996; the vote that Numbers USA refers (the Mack Amendment) simply clarified the 1996 law by stating that some Central and South American illegal immigrants who fled our wars with communism and whose deportation cases were already in the pipeline when the tough 1996 law passed, would have their deportation cases evaluated under the pre-1996 law. It did not give one single illegal alien a right to stay here.
This amendment, which passed with 99 senate votes including Thompson and Sessions, aligned the law with court rulings and pre-existing agreements made by the Bush I and Reagan administrations.
Here is more detail:
The amendment that Numbers USA refers to was the Mack Amendment, which clarified the tough-on illegals immigration law that passed in 1996 with Fred Thompson’s support.
The background is that the Reagan administration, and then later the Bush administration in a class action suit (American Baptist Churches et al. v. Thornburgh) made agreements with illigal immigrants who fled our wars against communism in central and south America; these agreements laid out the conditions under which these particular illegal immigrants could apply to have their deportations suspended.
The 1996 law changed the criteria by which illegal aliens could have their deportations suspended. The Mack amendment simply clarified that these particular illegal aliens who were subject to the class action agreements made by Reagan and HW Bush, and whose deportation cases were already in the pipeline when the new law was enacted in 1996, would have their deportation cases heard under the old rules. In other words, the amendment did not automatically grant them citizenship or allow them to stay - all it did was cancel out a retroactive change in the agreements for those whose cases were already under consideration. Any illegal immigrants, even from these classes, whose cases were not already in the pipeline at the time of the 1996 immigration bill enactment would have to submit to the new, tougher rules.
Here is the link to the vote (you can navigate from there to the text of the amendment itself:
I'd vote for a dead skunk over Rudy. Therefore, if Rudy and Hillary win their parties' nod, we need a third party to nominate a dead skunk.
Fred left the senate because of his daughter’s death, not term limits, giving us wimpy Lamar Alexander.
You make a post feebly attempting to make a negative comparison of Thompson's legal work with Hunter's. Then, when it's pointed out to you that Thompson's had quite an impressive legal career compared to Hunter's sole claim to fame that he helped poor (illegal?) Hispanics, you "APPLAUD the fact that Thompson's "legal credentials" eclipse Duncan Hunter" because, now, having impressive legal credentials is somehow a negative for a presidential candidate. Do you ever listen to yourself? You Hunterites are becoming more bizarre every day.
Hunter is a non factor in the presidential race. It's not because of conservatives, the MSM or any other factor outside Hunter himself. He is not popular, nationally, with either voters in general or Republicans. Deal with it. He has no experience in running anything but a local campaign and it shows. I know a hundred good people that are more consistently conservative than Hunter, and they won't be our next president either.
Rudy supporters made themselves annoyingly unpopular by attempting to raise their candidate up by attacking Conservative candidates. You, and other Hunter supporters, are following down that same road. It won't work for you or Hunter any better than it worked for the Guiliani supporters. You will only succeed in annoying people, hurting the candidate you claim to support, and, ultimately, helping make the next election a contest between two unacceptable liberals.
You might want to think about that.
Fred Thompson is just one more RINO who will lead the GOP to a Bob Dole-style loss. If he gets the nomination, you FredHeads will learn that fact, although it will be too late for our Republic.
THAT is what you and your brethren ought to be thinking about.
(Hey Wildcat, they’re still drinking the purple FredAid in this thread, I’ve got to go do some TCB (Takin Care o’ Bidness), have at it FRiend)
Never? I guess that depends on your definition of winning.
>>>Never? I guess that depends on your definition of winning.
Read the comments I replied to, then my reply. If you did read them and didn’t understand them, read them again. It’s Reagan’s example I endorsed, not the rule or ruin tantrums we are now seeing so frequently.
Fred Thompson:
Voted NO on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons.
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam.
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China.
Voted YES to give permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China.
Voted to kill an amendment that would require sanctions against China or other countries if they were found to be selling illicit weapons of mass destruction.
Support the One-China policy, don’t weaken it.
Inaction on spying led to Chinese nuclear improvement.
Voted YES on ending Vietnam embargo.
Admit China to WTO based on their concessions.
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam.
Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons.
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam.
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China.
“china is cheating on trade and they’re buying ships, planes and missiles with our money, as well as taking millions of jobs.”
Voted YES on deterring foreign arms transfers to China.
Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
Thank you for that FRiend.
Once again, from the late Johnny Cash:
“Lies have to be covered up, truth can run around naked”
I not only read the comments you were replying to. I wrote one of them, and JR wrote the other. You were not endorsing President Reagan’s example. You were belittling us for supporting President Reagan’s values.
I will not vote for your crap under any circumstances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.