Fred or Ron?

Samizdata ^ | December 31, 2007

[2ndDivisionVet]

Well done!

[jdm]

Urggghhh! This would have been permitted in News/Activism!

[papasmurf]

Sami is right on the mark.

FRed gets it, and he can give it, as well.

[Allegra]

Excellent!

This is going to tie the Ministry of Silly Explanations in knots.

[jdm]

I want to thank the mod for moving this to News/Activism.

2ndDV - Even a photo of Chelsea is allowed in News/Activism, so of course this piece would...

[Mr. Mojo]

MAD, mutually assured destruction, is the butt of many dark jokes. The truth however, is that it works well when dealing with a rationally self interested opportunist. For fifty years it has prevented the rational holders of nuclear weapons from using them. But in the case of irrational or potentially irrational nuclear powers, its effect cannot be assumed.

Exactomundo.

[ConservativeMind]

I wouldn’t have thought to compare Fred and Ron.

That’s like comparing Winston Churchill to The Joker from Batman. It’s not something most people would think to do.

[2ndDivisionVet]

"I wouldn’t have thought to compare Fred and Ron. That’s like comparing Winston Churchill to The Joker from Batman. It’s not something most people would think to do."

Yes, but some of those who support Ron Paul could be brought back to conservatism with a federalist like Fred. I don't think Rudy McRombee would draw many of Paul's right-wing supporters (not the Birkenstockers, Neo-Nazis, peacecreeps and KKK).

[truth_seeker]

“I would rather see a big government Democrat elected than a big government Republican.”

Then you must feel we would have been better off these last eight years with Al Gore or John Kerry?

Cuz that is precisely what you contend.

[Jet Jaguar]

BTTT

[SatinDoll]

>>
We positively cannot stay uninvolved in the rest of the world.
>>

True. But we sure can pull out of some places, like Germany and Japan. There are military bases in places where our presence is no longer necessary, and no bases in places where we are sorely needed.

One global field of action I would like to see us take is to mobilize and mount a world-wide anti-piracy action, involving a great many of the nations whose ships are being attacked on a daily basis. Going it alone would be foolish, but organizing a group of nations to coordinate fighting against pirates, many of whom steal in the Indian Ocean to support terrorism, would be beneficial to a whole lot of nations and not just to ourselves.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Remember: I am not the author of these articles, unless explicitly stated.

[endthematrix]

"To achieve anything a president must be taken seriously, both as an ally and as an opponent. "

Must have never heard of an Executive Order...

[Grimmy]

Ron Paul is a non choice for many many reasons, not the least of which is that nothing he proposes to stand for can actually be achieved by a POTUS. We don’t elect emperors.

To achieve what the libertarians want to get done, both the good and the silly parts, requires a retaking of the political field at the ground level starting in city/county politics and working from there up.

No POTUS nor even a Congress can make any real substantial changes to bring us back to our government as set forth in our Constitution for so long as the education system is allowed to be a safe haven for intellectual inbred social utopianist indoctrinators and our local governance is demanding socialist superstate welfarism to answer the demands created in the population by those who constantly teach and preach cultural erosionism.

There’s no way in hell any of that can be addressed, ameliorated or much reduced by a POTUS.

Even SCOUTS appointments can only delay the cultural degradation.

[DesScorp]

Thompson is the man. I wouldn’t elect Paul dogcatcher.

[endthematrix]

"Fred will be the first time since Reagan that I actually vote for a presidential candidate instead of against their opponent. "

The title of the thread was Fred or Ron? So I guess the Ron Paul trash talk was just for fun?

[incindiary]

Well, I might get lambasted for going against the majority here, but there are a few reasons why I can't support Thompson. (I know how popular he is here, but if a difference of opinion is allowed, then please don't come back with attacks, I'm just sharing how I feel, if that is ok.)

The main one is, he represents the status-quo. More of the same. I realize that for many here that is ok, or it's a good thing. But I think our country is on the wrong path and there are some very serious problems that need to be reversed, before it's too late. To me, electing a status-quo candidate at this point is out of the question.

I've learned to trust my instincts, and they've been right, for the most part. My gut instinct tells me that something is not as it appears. I get the feeling he is a typical politician, who says all the right things, and may sound great, but like Bush and others, is just part of the insiders club. They talk about conservatism, but our government keeps growing, we keep heading towards socialism... so again, it's more of the same.

Also, I know that many of you scoff at this, but I couldn't vote for anyone who is a CFR member. The fact that he is, just confirms my feeling that he is another globalist and not a true constitutionalist/patriot.

And the fact that he is an actor is another thing I don't like. That may sound petty, but it just gives more weight to my initial instinct.

There are few other things too, but it doesn't matter, I could never vote for him, and I don't want to anger any Fredheads even more, so I'll just leave it at that. ;-)

[John Valentine]

The main one is, he (Thompson) represents the status-quo. More of the same.

Pitiful and sad. You haven't got a single clue what Fred Thompson is all about and probably wouldn't if you were tutored on the subject. Your statement above stands as stark proof.

[incindiary]

I have heard him speak at debates, I have read where he stands on the issues, I have watched his videos, I've read FR threads, and what his supporters say... Sorry, but I have seen enough to have an opinion on him.

[John Valentine]

So then, just for my amusement, which of the Republican candidates (if any) do you think does NOT stand for the “status quo”?