[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.

[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.

[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...

[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. ;-)

[ballplayer]

NO ONE IS GOING TO ROLL BACK GOVERNMENT .There are millions of Union government employees who will not vote to lose their jobs . Case closed

[LinnKeyes2000]

There are a few reasons why I don't see Ron Paul getting withing 100 yards of the Oval Office. One of which is his foreign policy does not match with the desires or the needs of the people - it would be splendid to be isolationist and do formal declarations of war but some Muslims have declared war on US! They aren't a govt entity so we can't declare war back on them. The majority of the people understand that.

Unfortunately, for Paul, the war will not be an issue come Nov08, as predicted by Rush, and domestic policy will become at least equally, if not the dominate factor. That is where Paul will fail. His ideas are too radical for people to understand at this point. Maybe sometime later, the conditions will be there that people will go for dramatic change but they aren't quite there yet. Almost nothing he proposes to change domestically can be done or will be accomplished without huge political backlash - and that is assuming that Paul isn't cut to shreds by MSM and Democratic Demonization, putting in a Democrat POTUS.

[AuntB]

I would trust Fred on immigration issues before I would Paul.

I know how it distresses Paul fans when anything is posted about his RECORD.

Paul has some questionable votes in this area (3 times voted for amnesty for visa over stayers, etc), but let’s look at just a couple of recent ones and you decide WHY he would vote against these measures.

H.Res. 800- a resolution stating that that States should not issue driver’s licenses or other government-issued photo identification to aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States.
Paul voted NO http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/ROLL_100.asp

H.R. 4160- legislation withholding highway funds from those states which issue a driver’s license or identification card to illegal aliens.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h4160/show Paul did not co sponsor- no final vote yet.